Revision as of 15:18, 11 September 2007 editFeloniousMonk (talk | contribs)18,409 edits remove new poll, too small/unnotable a poll← Previous edit | Latest revision as of 19:36, 31 October 2024 edit undoShonebrooks (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users6,944 editsm I corrected the spelling of "evolution." WP:TYPO | ||
Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
{{ |
{{short description|Variation in support for the theory of evolution}} | ||
{{For|the scientific evidence supporting evolution|Evidence of common descent}} | |||
{{Evolutionary biology}} | |||
The '''level of support for |
The '''level of support for evolution''' among scientists, the public, and other groups is a topic that frequently arises in the ], and touches on educational, religious, philosophical, scientific, and political issues. The subject is especially contentious in countries where significant levels of non-acceptance of ] by the general population exists, but evolution is taught at public schools and universities. | ||
</ref><ref name="dover_pg83">]</ref> some ] have asserted that there is a significant scientific controversy and disagreement over the validity of evolution.<ref name=ICR>, ], Impact #86, ] website</ref><ref></ref><ref>The ] issued a press release August 19, 2003, signed by 24 Texas faculty members that stated that "in recent years, a growing number of scientists have raised significant issues that challenge various aspects of neo-Darwinian theory. Thus, we think the best science education will present students with both 'the strengths and weaknesses' of neo-Darwinian theory." An analysis of the signers demonstrates that only one was a biolgist (emeritus). The others were from other fields like military science, religious studies or journalism. A second press release September 5, 2003 was signed by 40 "scientists", many that signed the earlier press release, claiming, "''We are skeptical of claims for the ability of random mutation and natural selection to account for the complexity of life. Careful examination of the evidence for Darwinian theory should be encouraged. The Darwin-only lobby tries to claim there is no scientific debate over the strengths and weaknesses of neo-Darwinism, and this proves that's just bogus.'' "</ref> | |||
{{As of|2014}}, nearly all (around 98%) of the scientific community accepts evolution as the dominant scientific theory of biological diversity<ref>{{cite web|url=https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2019/02/11/darwin-day/ |title=For Darwin Day, 6 facts about the evolution debate |date=11 February 2019 }}</ref> with, {{As of|2009|lc=y}}, some 87% accepting that evolution occurs due to natural processes, such as ].<ref name=pew/> Scientific associations have strongly rebutted and refuted the challenges to evolution proposed by ] proponents.<ref name="dover_pg83">]: "an overwhelming number of scientists, as reflected by every scientific association that has spoken on the matter, have rejected the ID proponents’ challenge to evolution."</ref> | |||
Creationists in the United States also claim that because there is a significant lack of public support for evolution, that ] should "]". Nearly every ], representing hundreds of thousands of scientists, has issued ]<ref name="dover_pg83"/> and a petition supporting the teaching of evolution was endorsed by 72 US ] winners. Additionally, US courts have ruled in favor of teaching evolution in science classrooms, and against teaching creationism, in numerous cases. | |||
There are many religious groups and denominations spread across several countries who reject the theory of evolution because it is in conflict with their central belief of ]. For example, countries having such groups include the ],<ref>{{cite journal | url = http://www.slate.com/id/1006378/ | title = George W. Bush, The Last Relativist | first = Timothy | last = Noah | journal = Slate |date=2000-10-31 | access-date = 2007-10-23}}</ref><ref>{{cite news |url=http://susanohanian.org/show_atrocities.html?id=2579 |title=Revealed: Tony Blair's link to schools that take the Creation literally |first=Nicholas |last=Pyke |newspaper=] |date=2004-06-13 |url-status=dead |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20070928001636/http://susanohanian.org/show_atrocities.html?id=2579 |archive-date=2007-09-28 }}; full article at {{cite web |last=Ohanian |first=Susan |title=Outrages |access-date=2007-10-23 |url=http://susanohanian.org/show_atrocities.html?id=2579 |archive-date=2009-02-18 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20090218192538/http://susanohanian.org/show_atrocities.html?id=2579 |url-status=dead }}</ref><ref>{{cite web | url = http://www2.onnachrichten.t-online.de/dyn/c/19/01/33/1901336.html | title = Wir drehen die Uhr um 1000 Jahre zurück ("''We put the clock back a 1000 years''") | language = de | first = Peer | last = Meinert | access-date = 2007-10-23 | url-status = dead | archive-url = https://web.archive.org/web/20071014224931/http://onnachrichten.t-online.de/dyn/c/19/01/33/1901336.html | archive-date = 2007-10-14 }}</ref><ref>{{cite news | url = http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/3642460.stm | title = Serbia reverses Darwin suspension | work = ] |date=2004-09-09 | access-date = 2007-10-23 | format = stm }}</ref><ref>{{cite journal | url = http://www.wbj.pl/?command=article&id=35336&type=wbj | title = And finally.. | journal = Warsaw Business Journal |date=2006-12-18 | access-date = 2007-10-23 | author1 = <!--Please add first missing authors to populate metadata.--> }}</ref><ref>{{cite web | url = http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs2005/0607dutch_debate.asp | title = Creation commotion in Dutch Parliament | first = Frans | last = Gunnink | author2 = Bell, Philip | date = 2005-06-07 | access-date = 2007-10-23 | archive-url = https://web.archive.org/web/20071013114948/http://answersingenesis.org/docs2005/0607dutch_debate.asp | archive-date = 2007-10-13 | url-status = dead }}; {{cite journal | url = http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/summary/308/5727/1394b | title = Evolution politics: Is Holland becoming the Kansas of Europe? | first = Martin | last = Enserink | journal = Science | date = 2005-06-03 | volume = 308 | issue = 5727 | pages = 1394 | doi = 10.1126/science.308.5727.1394b | pmid = 15933170 | s2cid = 153515231 }}</ref> ],<ref name="NS-WorldwideCreationism">{{cite web |url=https://www.newscientist.com/article/mg20327153.900-worldwide-creationism-shotgun-stunner-and-more.html |title=Worldwide creationism, Shotgun stunner, and more |work=New Scientist |access-date=2010-05-24}}</ref> the ], ], ], the ], and ], with smaller followings in the ], the ], ], ], ], ],<ref name="Galileo goes to jail">{{cite book |author=Numbers, Ronald L. |title=Galileo goes to jail: and other myths about science and religion |publisher=Harvard University Press |location=Cambridge |date=2009 |pages=221–223 |isbn=978-0-674-03327-6 }}</ref> ],<ref>{{cite book | last1 = Numbers | first1 = Ronald L. | title = Galileo goes to jail and other myths about science and religion | publisher = Harward University Press |place= Cambridge and London | date = 2009 | pages = 217 | chapter-url = https://books.google.com/books?id=_Wj-ruvGFvgC&q=galileo+goes+to+jail | access-date = 2011-09-03 |chapter= Myth 24: That Creationism is a Uniquely American Phenomenon | isbn = 978-0-674-03327-6 |quote= Antievolutionists in Australia celebrated in August 2005, when the minister of education, a Christian physician named Brendan Nelson, came out in favor of exposing students both to evolution and ID... }}</ref> ],<ref>{{cite book | last1 = Numbers | first1 = Ronald L. | title = Galileo goes to jail and other myths about science and religion | publisher = Harward University Press |place= Cambridge and London | date = 2009 | pages = 217, 279 | chapter-url = https://books.google.com/books?id=_Wj-ruvGFvgC&q=galileo+goes+to+jail | access-date = 2011-09-03 |chapter= Myth 24: That Creationism is a Uniquely American Phenomenon | isbn = 978-0-674-03327-6 |quote= Three years later the ] surprised many of its readers by announcing that "God and Darwin are still battling it out in New Zealand schools." }}</ref> and ].<ref>{{cite book | last1 = Numbers | first1 = Ronald L. | title = Galileo goes to jail and other myths about science and religion | publisher = Harward University Press |place= Cambridge and London | date = 2009 | pages = 217 | chapter-url = https://books.google.com/books?id=_Wj-ruvGFvgC&q=galileo+goes+to+jail | access-date = 2011-09-03 |chapter= Myth 24: That Creationism is a Uniquely American Phenomenon | isbn = 978-0-674-03327-6 |quote= Writing in 2000, one observer claimed that "there are possibly more creationists per capita in Canada than in any other Western country apart from US." }}</ref> | |||
Creationists have made inroads in the political realm in the US and other countries.<ref>For example, in the US Presidential Race in 2000, both ] and ]'s initial political platforms included advocating the teaching of both evolution and creationism in science classes (, Timothy Noah, Chatterbox: Gossip, speculation, and scuttlebutt about politics, Slate, Oct. 31, 2000).</ref><ref>UK Prime Minister ] appears to have been supporting efforts to establish schools teaching creationism in the UK ('''', Nicholas Pyke, The Independent, 2004-06-13)</ref><ref> | |||
In ], former prime minister ] wanted to retire evolution from schools in the middle level; after one week of massive protests, he reversed his opinion.().</ref><ref></ref><ref>] saw a major controversy over creationism in ] when the deputy education minister, ], denounced evolution as "one of many lies" taught in Polish schools </ref><ref>, Frans Gunnink, and Philip Bell, Answers in Genesis article, 7 June 2005; , Martin Enserink, Science 3 June 2005: Vol. 308. no. 5727, p. 1394 DOI: 10.1126/science.308.5727.1394b</ref> The most prominent organization behind this movement has been the ], the driving force behind the ]. Through its ], the Institute conducts a number of ] aimed at influencing the public and policy makers in order to force its beliefs into ], which it claims is ] and hidebound. | |||
Several publications discuss the subject of acceptance,<ref>{{cite book |author=McCollister, Betty |title=Voices for evolution |publisher=National Center for Science Education |location=Berkeley, CA |date=1989 |isbn=978-0-939873-51-7 }}</ref><ref>{{cite book |author=Matsumura, Molleen |title=Voices for evolution |publisher=National Center for Science Education |location=Berkeley, CA |date=1995 |isbn=978-0-939873-53-1 |url = http://www.don-lindsay-archive.org/creation/voices/permit.htm }}</ref> including a document produced by the ].<ref name=NASteaching>{{cite book |author= Working Group on Teaching Evolution, National Academy of Sciences |title=Teaching about evolution and the nature of science |publisher=National Academy Press |location=Washington, D.C. |date=1998 |isbn=978-0-309-06364-7 }}; available on-line: {{cite book | url = http://books.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=5787&page=56 | title = Teaching About Evolution and the Nature of Science (ebook) | date = 1998 |author = United States National Academy of Sciences | publisher = National Academy Press | location = Washington DC | access-date = 2007-10-23 | doi = 10.17226/5787 | isbn = 978-0-309-06364-7 | author-link = United States National Academy of Sciences }}</ref> | |||
Many claims in the creation-evolution controversy rest on whether or not evolution is genuinely disputed by those in scientific circles, and on the acceptance of evolution by the public, as well as religious and educational organizations. Therefore, gauging the level of support and ] for evolution is of interest in evaluating assertions on all sides. Publications that discuss this include McCollister and Asimov (1989),<ref>''Voices for Evolution'', Betty McCollister, ], ] (November 1989), ISBN-10: 0939873516</ref> Matsumura (1998),<ref>, Molleen Matsumura (Editor), ]; Revised edition (June 1995), ISBN-10: 0939873532 | |||
</ref> and ''Teaching About Evolution and the Nature of Science'', released by the ] in 1998,<ref name=NASteaching></ref> and this topic is also addressed on numerous websites. | |||
==Scientific |
==Scientific== | ||
The vast majority of the ] and ] supports evolutionary theory as the only explanation that can fully |
The vast majority of the ] and ] supports evolutionary theory as the only explanation that can fully account for observations in the fields of ], ], ], ], ], and others.<ref>{{cite news | first=PZ | last=Myers | author-link=PZ Myers | title=Ann Coulter: No evidence for evolution? | date=2006-06-18 | publisher=scienceblogs.com | url=http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2006/06/ann_coulter_no_evidence_for_ev.php | work=Pharyngula | access-date=2006-11-18 | url-status=dead | archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20060622031856/http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2006/06/ann_coulter_no_evidence_for_ev.php | archive-date=2006-06-22 }}</ref><ref>The ]'s </ref><ref> {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20110717190031/http://www.interacademies.net/10878/13901.aspx |date=2011-07-17 }} Joint statement issued by the national science academies of 67 countries, including the ] ] (PDF file)</ref><ref name="AAAS Denounces Anti-Evolution Laws">From the ], the world's largest general scientific society: (PDF file), </ref><ref name=factfancy></ref> A 1991 Gallup poll found that about 5% of American scientists (including those with training outside biology) identified themselves as creationists.<ref name=robinson></ref><ref>{{Cite web |title=Many Scientists See God's Hand in Evolution {{!}} National Center for Science Education |url=https://ncse.ngo/many-scientists-see-gods-hand-evolution |access-date=2024-05-11 |website=ncse.ngo |language=en}}</ref><ref>{{cite journal|url=http://nihrecord.od.nih.gov/newsletters/2006/07_28_2006/story03.htm |last=Delgado |first=Cynthia |title=Finding evolution in medicine |journal=NIH Record |volume=58 |issue=15 |access-date=2007-10-22 |date=2006-07-28 |format=html |url-status=dead |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20081122022815/http://nihrecord.od.nih.gov/newsletters/2006/07_28_2006/story03.htm |archive-date=2008-11-22 }}</ref> | ||
Additionally, the ] considers ], a ] offshoot, to be unscientific,<ref>See: 1) ] 2) |
Additionally, the ] considers ], a ] offshoot, to be unscientific,<ref>See: 1) ] 2) ]. 3) The Discovery Institute's ] petition begun in 2001 has been signed by "over 600 scientists" as of August 20, 2006. A four-day ] petition gained 7733 signatories from scientists opposing ID. The AAAS, the largest association of scientists in the U.S., has 120,000 members, and {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20021113213410/http://www.aaas.org/news/releases/2002/1106id2.shtml |date=2002-11-13 }}. More than 70,000 Australian scientists and educators {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20060614003243/http://www.science.unsw.edu.au/news/2005/intelligent.html |date=2006-06-14 }}. on the status intelligent design and other forms of creationism.</ref> ],<ref>National Science Teachers Association, a professional association of 55,000 science teachers and administrators in a 2005 press release: "We stand with the nation's leading scientific organizations and scientists, including Dr. John Marburger, the president's top science advisor, in stating that intelligent design is not science.…It is simply not fair to present pseudoscience to students in the science classroom." {{webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20110212053541/http://www.nsta.org/main/news/stories/nsta_story.php?news_story_ID=50792 |date=2011-02-12 }} National Science Teachers Association Press Release August 3, 2005</ref><ref> Journal of Clinical Investigation 116:1134–1138 American Society for Clinical Investigation, 2006.</ref> or ].<ref>{{Cite magazine |last=Orr |first=H. Allen |date=2005-05-23 |title=Devolution |url=https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2005/05/30/devolution-2 |access-date=2023-03-01 |magazine=The New Yorker |language=en-US |quote=Biologists aren’t alarmed by intelligent design’s arrival in Dover and elsewhere because they have all sworn allegiance to atheistic materialism; they’re alarmed because intelligent design is junk science.}}</ref><ref>{{Cite book |last=Pennock |first=Robert T. |url=https://www.worldcat.org/oclc/44966044 |title=Tower of Babel : the evidence against the new creationism |date=1999 |publisher=MIT Press |isbn=0-585-15711-1 |location=Cambridge, Mass. |oclc=44966044}}</ref> The ] has stated that intelligent design "and other claims of ] intervention in the origin of life" are not science because they cannot be tested by ], do not generate any predictions, and propose no new ] of their own.<ref>National Academy of Sciences, 1999 </ref> In September 2005, 38 ] issued a statement saying "Intelligent design is fundamentally unscientific; it cannot be tested as scientific theory because its central conclusion is based on belief in the intervention of a supernatural agent."<ref>The Elie Wiesel Foundation for Humanity Nobel Laureates Initiative. Intelligent design cannot be tested as a scientific theory <cite>"because its central conclusion is based on belief in the intervention of a supernatural agent."</cite> {{webarchive |url=https://web.archive.org/web/20061209120655/http://media.ljworld.com/pdf/2005/09/15/nobel_letter.pdf |date=December 9, 2006 }} (PDF file)</ref> In October 2005, a coalition representing more than 70,000 Australian scientists and science teachers issued a statement saying "intelligent design is not science" and calling on "all schools not to teach Intelligent Design (ID) as science, because it fails to qualify on every count as a scientific theory".<ref>Faculty of Science, University of New South Wales. 20 October 2005. {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20060614003243/http://www.science.unsw.edu.au/news/2005/intelligent.html |date=2006-06-14 }}</ref> | ||
In 1986, an '']'' brief |
In 1986, an '']'' brief, signed by 72 US Nobel Prize winners, 17 state academies of science and 7 other scientific societies, asked the ] in '']'', to reject a ] state law requiring that where evolutionary science was taught in public schools, creation science must also be taught. The brief also stated that the term "creation science" as used by the law embodied religious dogma, and that "teaching religious ideas mislabeled as science is detrimental to scientific education".<ref name=amicus>Amicus Curiae brief in {{cite court |litigants=Edwards v. Aguillard |vol=85-1513|reporter= |opinion= |pinpoint= |court=United States Supreme Court |date=1986-08-18 |url=}}, available at {{cite web | url = http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/edwards-v-aguillard/amicus1.html | title = Edwards v. Aguillard: Amicus Curiae Brief of 72 Nobel Laureates | access-date = 2007-10-19 | publisher = From ]}}</ref> This was the largest collection of Nobel Prize winners to sign a petition up to that point.<ref>{{cite journal | last1 = Norman | first1 = Colin | year = 1986 | title = Nobelists unite against "creation science" | journal = Science | volume = 233 | issue = 4767| page = 935 | bibcode = 1986Sci...233..935N | doi = 10.1126/science.3738518 }}</ref> According to anthropologists Almquist and Cronin, the brief is the "clearest statement by scientists in support of evolution yet produced."<ref name=factfancy/> | ||
There are many scientific and scholarly organizations from around the world that have issued statements in support of the theory of evolution.<ref> |
There are many scientific and scholarly organizations from around the world that have issued statements in support of the theory of evolution.<ref>{{Cite web |title=Statements from Scientific and Scholarly Organizations {{!}} National Center for Science Education |url=https://ncse.ngo/statements-scientific-and-scholarly-organizations |access-date=2024-05-11 |website=ncse.ngo |language=en}}</ref><ref>{{Cite web |url=http://www.icsu.org/Gestion/img/ICSU_DOC_DOWNLOAD/1017_DD_FILE_IAP_Evolution.pdf |title=List of 68 international scientific societies on the Interacademy Panel (IAP) that endorse a resolution supporting evolution and a multibillion year old earth, June 2006. |access-date=2007-01-04 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20061205234008/http://www.icsu.org/Gestion/img/ICSU_DOC_DOWNLOAD/1017_DD_FILE_IAP_Evolution.pdf |archive-date=2006-12-05 |url-status=dead }}</ref><ref></ref><ref>{{Cite web |url=http://www.royalsoc.ac.uk/news.asp?year=&id=4298 |title=''Royal Society statement on evolution, creationism and intelligent design'', 11 Apr 2006. |access-date=4 January 2007 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20071013040110/http://www.royalsoc.ac.uk/news.asp?year=&id=4298 |archive-date=13 October 2007 |url-status=dead |df=dmy-all }}</ref> The ], the world's largest general scientific society with more than 130,000 members and over 262 affiliated societies and academies of science including over 10 million individuals, has made several statements and issued several press releases in support of evolution.<ref name="AAAS Denounces Anti-Evolution Laws"/> The prestigious ], which provides science advice to the nation, has published several books supporting evolution and criticising creationism and intelligent design.<ref>{{Cite book |url=https://nap.nationalacademies.org/read/11876/chapter/1 |title=Read "Science, Evolution, and Creationism" at NAP.edu |date=2008 |doi=10.17226/11876 |isbn=978-0-309-10586-6 |language=en}}</ref><ref>{{Cite web |date=2007-11-17 |title=Teaching About Evolution and the Nature of Science |url=http://orsted.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=5787&page=R1 |access-date=2024-05-11 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20071117073919/http://orsted.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=5787&page=R1 |archive-date=2007-11-17 }}</ref> | ||
There is a notable difference between the opinion of scientists and that of the general public in the United States. A {{As of|2009|alt=2009}} poll by ] found that "Nearly all scientists (97%) say humans and other living things have evolved over time – 87% say evolution is due to natural processes, such as natural selection. The dominant position among scientists – that living things have evolved due to natural processes – is shared by only about a third (32%) of the public."<ref name="pew">{{Cite web |last=Rosenberg |first=Stacy |date=2009-07-09 |title=Section 5: Evolution, Climate Change and Other Issues |url=https://www.pewresearch.org/politics/2009/07/09/section-5-evolution-climate-change-and-other-issues/ |access-date=2024-05-11 |website=Pew Research Center |language=en-US}}</ref> Whereas a {{As of|2014|alt=2014}} Pew poll found "65% of adults say that humans and other living things have evolved".<ref>{{cite web|url=https://www.pewresearch.org/internet/2015/07/01/chapter-4-evolution-and-perceptions-of-scientific-consensus/ |title=Chapter 4: Evolution and Perceptions of Scientific Consensus |date=July 2015 }}</ref> | |||
===Voting, resolutions and statements of scientists before 1985=== | |||
One of the earliest efforts to express support for evolution by scientists was organized by Nobel Prize Winner German biologist ] in 1966. Muller circulated a petition entitled "Is Biological Evolution a Principle of Nature that has been well established by Science?" in May of 1966: | |||
===Votes, resolutions, and statements of scientists before 1985=== | |||
{{quotation|There are no hypotheses, alternative to the principle of evolution with its “tree of life,” that any competent biologist of today takes seriously. Moreover, the principle is so important for an understanding of the world we live in and of ourselves that the public in general, including students taking biology in high school, should be made aware of it, and of the fact that it is firmly established, even as the rotundity of the earth is firmly established.''<ref>Bales, James D., ''Forty-Two Years on the Firing Line'', Lambert, Shreveport, LA, p.71-72, no date.</ref>}} | |||
One of the earliest resolutions in support of evolution was issued by the ] in 1922, and readopted in 1929.<ref>, ], Adopted by the AAAS Council, December 26, 1922. AAAS Executive Committee readopts this resolution on April 21, 1929.</ref><ref> {{webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20090207173612/http://home.entouch.net/dmd/moreandmore.htm |date=2009-02-07 }}, G. R. Morton, Copyright 2002 G.R. Morton</ref> | |||
Another early effort to express support for evolution by scientists was organized by Nobel Prize–winning American biologist ] in 1966. Muller circulated a petition entitled "Is Biological Evolution a Principle of Nature that has been well established by Science?" in May 1966: | |||
This manifesto was signed by 177 of the leading American biologists, including Nobel Prize Winner ] of ], ] of ], ] of ], Nobel Prize Winner ], President of the ], and ] of ], formerly head of the ].<ref name=DayScientistsVoted></ref> | |||
{{blockquote|There are no hypotheses, alternative to the principle of evolution with its "tree of life," that any competent biologist of today takes seriously. Moreover, the principle is so important for an understanding of the world we live in and of ourselves that the public in general, including students taking biology in high school, should be made aware of it, and of the fact that it is firmly established, even as the rotundity of the earth is firmly established.<ref>Bales, James D., ''Forty-Two Years on the Firing Line'', Lambert, Shreveport, LA, p.71-72, no date.</ref>}} | |||
This was followed by the passing of a resolution by the ] (AAAS) in the fall of 1972 that stated, in part, "the theory of creation... is neither scientifically grounded nor capable of performing the rules required of science theories".<ref name=ABT>American Biology Teacher, January 1973.</ref> The ] also passed a similar resolution in the fall of 1972.<ref name=ABT/> A "''A Statement Affirming Evolution as a Principle of Science.''" was signed by Nobel Prize Winner ], ], Nobel Prize Winner ], Caltech Biology Professor ], ], and others, and published in 1977.<ref>''A Statement Affirming Evolution as a Principle of Science,'' The Humanist, January/February, 1977, p. 4-6.</ref> The governing board of the ] issued a statement supporting resolution in November 1981.<ref> AAPG Explorer, January, 1982.</ref> | |||
This manifesto was signed by 177 of the leading American biologists, including ] of ], Nobel Prize Winner ] of ], ] of ], ] of ], Nobel Prize Winner ], President of the ], and ] of ], formerly head of the ].<ref name=DayScientistsVoted></ref> | |||
This was followed by the passing of a resolution by the ] (AAAS) in the fall of 1972 that stated, in part, "the theory of creation ... is neither scientifically grounded nor capable of performing the rules required of science theories".<ref name=ABT>American Biology Teacher, January 1973.</ref> The ] also passed a similar resolution in the fall of 1972.<ref name=ABT/> A statement on evolution called "A Statement Affirming Evolution as a Principle of Science." was signed by Nobel Prize Winner ], ], ], Caltech Biology Professor ], ], and others, and published in 1977.<ref>''A Statement Affirming Evolution as a Principle of Science,'' The Humanist, January/February, 1977, p. 4-6.</ref> The governing board of the ] issued a statement supporting resolution in November 1981.<ref>AAPG Explorer, January, 1982.</ref> | |||
Shortly thereafter, the ] passed another resolution supporting evolution and disparaging efforts to teach ] in science classes.<ref>''"Creation-Science" Law Is Struck Down,'' Raloff, J., Science News, 121:20, January 9, 1982.</ref> | Shortly thereafter, the ] passed another resolution supporting evolution and disparaging efforts to teach ] in science classes.<ref>''"Creation-Science" Law Is Struck Down,'' Raloff, J., Science News, 121:20, January 9, 1982.</ref> | ||
To date, there are no scientifically peer-reviewed research articles that disclaim evolution listed in the scientific and medical journal search engine ].<ref name="pmid16670753">{{cite journal | author=Attie AD | title=Defending science education against intelligent design: a call to action | journal=J Clin Invest | date= 2006 | volume= 116 | issue= 5 | pages= 1134–8 | pmid=16670753 | doi=10.1172/JCI28449 | pmc=1451210 |name-list-style=vanc| author2=Sober E | author3=Numbers RL | author4=Amasino RM | author5=Cox B | author6=Berceau T | display-authors=6 | last7=Powell | first7=T | last8=Cox | first8=MM }}</ref> | |||
===Creationist disputes over the scientific support for evolution=== | |||
Creationists strongly dispute the fact that there is overwhelming support for ] in the science community.<ref>, Do-While Jones, Disclosure Newsletter, July, 2001.</ref> | |||
One of the first attempts to provide evidence that there were substantial number of scientists who disagreed with evolution was a pamphlet produced by the ] in 1971 entitled ''"21 Scientists Who Believe in Creation"''<ref>''"21 Scientists Who Believe in Creation, 2nd edition"'', Creation-Life Publishers, 1971.</ref> This pamphlet has been reprinted several times. Skeptics have claimed that this list of 21 creation supporters is misleading since it includes 3 people with PhD's in education, 2 in theology, 5 in engineering, 1 in physics, 1 in chemistry, 1 in hydrology, 1 in entomology, 1 in psycholinguistics, 1 in food science technology, 2 in biochemistry, 1 in ecology, 1 in physiology and 1 in geophysics, and therefore most of their backgrounds might not give them much authority in evolutionary biology.<ref>, Paul Tobin, The Rejection of Pascal's Wager: A Skeptic's Guide to Christianity</ref><ref>, John W. Patterson, Proceedings of the Iowa Academy of Science 89(2):55-58, 1982.</ref> | |||
===Project Steve=== | |||
Similarly, chemist ] edited a book first published in 1999 with essays from 50 scientists describing why they believed in creationism.<ref>, ], Master Books, January 1, 2001, ISBN-10: 0890513414 </ref>. Ann Lamont wrote a book describing 21 famous scientists such as ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], and ] who she claimed believed in ].<ref>''21 great scientists who believed the Bible'', Ann Lamont, Creation Science Foundation, 1995. ISBN 0949906212 </ref> However, many of these scientists lived before much of the evidence against biblical literalism emerged. Of the previous list, only aerospace engineer ] was alive when evolution was firmly established and the geological evidence against ] had clearly emerged. It is also not clear what "believing in the bible" means, since there is a wide range of beliefs in the bible, although von Braun did write about his support for creationist ideas on the grounds of design. It should be noted that there is a vast difference between "believing in the bible" and subscribing to biblical literalism. Also, of the scientists listed above, only Pasteur was trained in and worked in a field relevant to biology. | |||
{{main|Project Steve}} | |||
The ] announced that over 700 scientists had expressed support for ] as of February 8, 2007.<ref> {{webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20061213221402/http://www.pandasthumb.org/archives/2006/02/few_biologists.html |date=December 13, 2006 }}</ref> This prompted the ] to produce a "light-hearted" ] called "]" in support of evolution. Only scientists named "Steve" or some variation (such as Stephen, Stephanie, and Stefan) are eligible to sign the petition. It is intended to be a "tongue-in-cheek ]" of the lists of alleged "scientists" supposedly supporting ] principles that creationist organizations produce.<ref name="steve">{{Cite web |title=Project Steve {{!}} National Center for Science Education |url=https://ncse.ngo/project-steve |access-date=2024-05-11 |website=ncse.ngo |language=en}}</ref><ref>{{Cite web |title=Bios |url=https://answersingenesis.org/bios/ |access-date=2024-05-11 |website=Answers in Genesis |language=en}}</ref> The petition demonstrates that there are more scientists who accept evolution with a name like "Steve" alone (over 1370<ref>{{Cite web |title=List of Steves {{!}} National Center for Science Education |url=https://ncse.ngo/list-steves |access-date=2024-05-11 |website=ncse.ngo |language=en}}</ref>) than there are in total who support intelligent design. This is, again, why the percentage of scientists who support evolution has been estimated by Brian Alters to be about 99.9 percent.<ref name=nihrecord> {{webarchive |url=https://web.archive.org/web/20081122022815/http://nihrecord.od.nih.gov/newsletters/2006/07_28_2006/story03.htm |date=November 22, 2008 }}, Cynthia Delgado, NIH Record, July 28, 2006.</ref> | |||
==Religious== | |||
In continuing attempts to counter the charge that there are no scientists who disagree with the principles of evolution, creationist organizations have gathered lists of hundreds of scientists that disagree with evolution and support creationism. Some prominent creationist organizations that have produced these kinds of lists include the ],<ref> ], a who dispute ] on the ]'s website</ref><ref>It should be noted that not all scientists who signed necessarily are staunch ]. For example, ], a visiting scientist at ], ], who signed but describes himself as an ], said that when he endorsed a ] he had no idea what the ] was. Salthe stated, “I signed it in irritation.” </ref> the ],<ref>, a list of biological and physical scientists that support ] on the ] website.</ref> ],<ref>, a list of scientists that support ] on the ] website.</ref> ].<ref>, a list of scientists who support ] on ]'s website. It should be noted that ] is the international arm of ] and not an independent organization.</ref> and ].<ref>, Who's who in Creation/Evolution (list of 94)</ref> The Institute for Creation Research website includes the following statement: | |||
{{globalize|date=February 2019}} | |||
{{see also|Acceptance of evolution by religious groups}} | |||
{{bar box | |||
|title=Religious Differences on the Question of Evolution (United States)<br/><small>Percentage who agree that evolution is the best explanation for the origin of human life on earth</small> | |||
|caption=Total U.S. population percentage:48%<br/>Source: ]<ref>, ] (conducted in 2007, released in 2008)</ref> | |||
|float=right | |||
|bars= | |||
{{bar pixel|Buddhist|black|405||81%}} | |||
{{bar pixel|Hindu|silver|400||80%}} | |||
{{bar pixel|Jewish|black|385||77%}} | |||
{{bar pixel|Unaffiliated|silver|360||72%}} | |||
{{bar pixel|Catholic|black|290||58%}} | |||
{{bar pixel|Orthodox|silver|270||54%}} | |||
{{bar pixel|Mainline Protestant|black|255||51%}} | |||
{{bar pixel|Muslim|silver|225||45%}} | |||
{{bar pixel|Hist. Black Protest.|black|190||38%}} | |||
{{bar pixel|Evang. Protestant|silver|120||24%}} | |||
{{bar pixel|Mormon|black|110||22%}} | |||
{{bar pixel|Jehovah's Witnesses|silver|40||8%}} | |||
}} | |||
Creationists have claimed that they represent the interests of true Christians, and evolution is associated only with ].<ref>Princeton theologian Charles Hodge, in his book {{webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20070224164219/http://www.errantskeptics.org/Quotes_Regarding_Creation_Evolution.htm |date=2007-02-24 }}, Charles Hodge, Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co, 1975, vol. 2, p. 15, argues that "''First, it shocks the common sense of unsophisticated men to be told that the whale and the humming-bird, man and the mosquito, are derived from the same source... the system is thoroughly atheistic, and therefore cannot possibly stand.''"</ref><ref> {{webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20061021232820/http://www.pathlights.com/ce_encyclopedia/21soc03.htm |date=2006-10-21 }}, p. 36 of ''Evolution and Society'', Volume 2 of ''Scientific Facts Against Evolution-Origin of the Universe: 3 Volume Encyclopedia'' states, of evolution and Christianity, "''there can be no reconciliation between the two. One view stands for fighting, warfare against the supposed weaker ones, and atheism; the other is for peace, self-sacrifice for the good of others, and belief and trust in the Creator God...Even evolutionists and atheists have declared that their creeds are totally different than those of Christianity.''" Also in the article ''Evolution and the churches'' on pages 39-41 of the same volume, "''In spite of clear-cut statements by evolutionists that "evolution IS atheism," many denominations today accept one form or another of evolutionary theory.''"</ref> | |||
{{quotation|Today there are thousands of scientists who are creationists and who repudiate any form of evolution in their analysis and use of scientific data. Creationist scientists can now be found in literally every discipline of science and their numbers are increasing rapidly. In the Creation Research Society (2717 Cranbrook Rd., Ann Arbor, MI 48104) alone there are over 650 scientist members with either doctor's or master's degrees in some field of natural science. Among the additional 2,000 + sustaining members of the Society, many are also scientists with bachelor's degrees, in addition to numerous social scientists and other highly educated people with postgraduate degrees in their own fields. Evolutionists are finding it increasingly difficult to maintain the fiction that evolution is "science" and creation is "religion." When news media personnel and others make such statements today, they merely reveal their own liberal social philosophies—not their awareness of scientific facts!<ref name=ICR/>}} | |||
However, not all religious organizations find support for evolution incompatible with their religious faith. For example, 12 of the plaintiffs opposing the teaching of ] in the influential '']'' court case were clergy representing Methodist, Episcopal, African Methodist Episcopal, Catholic, Southern Baptist, Reform Jewish, and Presbyterian groups.<ref></ref> There are several religious organizations that have issued statements advocating the teaching of evolution in public schools.<ref></ref> In addition, the ], Dr. ], issued statements in support of evolution in 2006.<ref></ref> The ] is a signed statement by 12,808 (as of 28 May 2012) American Christian clergy of different denominations rejecting creationism organized in 2004. Molleen Matsumura of the ] found, of Americans in the twelve largest Christian denominations, at least 77% belong to churches that support evolution education (and that at one point, this figure was as high as 89.6%).<ref>{{harvnb|Matsumura|1998|p=9}} notes that, "''Table 1 demonstrates that Americans in the 12 largest Christian denominations, 89.6% belong to churches that support evolution education! Indeed, many of the statements in ''Voices'' insist quite strongly that evolution must be included in science education and "creation science" must be excluded. Even if we subtract the ], which has changed its view of evolution since ] and might take a different position now, the percentage those in denominations supporting evolution is still a substantial 77%. Furthermore, many other Christian and non-Christian denominations, including the ] and the National Sikh Center, have shown some degree of support for evolution education (as defined by inclusion in 'Voices' or the "Joint Statement").''" Matsumura produced her table from a June, 1998 article titled ''Believers: Dynamic Dozen'' put out by Religion News Services which in turn cites the ''1998 Yearbook of American and Canadian Churches''. Matsurmura's calculations include the ] based on a brief they filed in ], where the SBC took a position it has since changed, according to Matsurmura. See also {{harvnb|NCSE|2002}}.</ref> These religious groups include the ], as well as various denominations of Protestantism, including the ], ], ], ], ], ], the ], and others.<ref> {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20110927061932/http://www.emporia.edu/biosci/schrock/docs/Eagle-25.pdf |date=September 27, 2011 }} <!-- This editorial mischaracterizes the Matsurmura|1998 article--></ref><ref>{{harvnb|Matsumura|1998|p=9}}</ref> A figure closer to about 71% is presented by the analysis of Walter B. Murfin and David F. Beck.<ref> {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20071015234023/http://www.cesame-nm.org/index.php?name=Sections |date=2007-10-15 }}, Walter B. Murfin, David F. Beck, 13 April 1998, hosted on {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20071015233002/http://www.cesame-nm.org/index.php |date=2007-10-15 }} website</ref> | |||
===Project Steve=== | |||
The ] has produced a "light-hearted" ] called "'']''" in support of ]. Only scientists named "Steve" or some variation (such as Stephen, Stephanie, and Stefan) are eligible to sign the petition. It is intended to be a "tongue-in-cheek ]" of the lists of alleged "scientists" supposedly supporting ] principles that creationist organizations produce.<ref name=steve></ref><ref> from ]</ref> | |||
] argued in Scientific American in October 2006 that evolution supports concepts like family values, avoiding lies, fidelity, moral codes and the rule of law. Shermer also suggests that evolution gives more support to the notion of an omnipotent creator, rather than a tinkerer with limitations based on a human model.<ref name=Shermer>, Michael Shermer, Scientific American, October 2006.</ref> | |||
According to the ], about 1.6% of ] and 0.4% of ] have a first name that would qualify them to sign the petition. Therefore, about 1% of all people in the United States are called Steve or some name that is close to Steve. | |||
===Ahmadiyya=== | |||
Therefore, if one can get N scientists named Steve or something similar to endorse the petition, one might expect that roughly 100xN scientists with all kinds of names would endorse the petition. As of ], ], 814 scientists named Steve had endorsed the petition, suggesting that if all scientists were allowed to endorse the petition, about 81,400 scientists would have signed.<ref name=steve/> | |||
{{Main|Ahmadiyya views of evolution}} | |||
This compares with the ]'s claim to have over 600 scientists that support ] as of the end of June, 2006.<ref></ref><ref>It should be noted that not all scientists who signed necessarily are staunch ]. For example, ], a visiting scientist at ], ], who signed but describes himself as an ], said that when he endorsed a ] he had no idea what the ] was. Salte stated, “I signed it in irritation.” </ref> | |||
The ] Movement universally accepts evolution and actively promotes it. ], Fourth ] of the ] has stated in his magnum opus '']'' that evolution did occur but only through ] being the One who brings it about. It does not occur itself, according to the ]. The Ahmadis do not believe ] was the first human on Earth, but merely the first prophet to receive a ] of God. | |||
===Baha'i Faith=== | |||
==Support for evolution by religious bodies== | |||
{{main|Bahá'í Faith and science#Evolution}} | |||
Many creationists act as ]s and their organizations are registered as tax-free religious organizations.<ref>For a discussion about some controversy about this, see ].</ref> Creationists have claimed that they represent the interests of true Christians, and evolution is only associated with atheism.<ref>Princeton theologian Charles Hodge, in his book , Charles Hodge, Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co, 1975, vol. 2, p. 15, argues that "''First, it shocks the common sense of unsophisticated men to be told that the whale and the humming-bird, man and the mosquito, are derived from the same source... the system is thoroughly atheistic, and therefore cannot possibly stand.''"</ref><ref>, Rev. Curtis L. Brickley, Jr., Darwin, Design and Democracy V: Science Converges on Design - from Cosmology to Paleontology to Biology, September 24-25, 2004, Woodward Hall, University of New Mexico, Albuquerque, New Mexico states that "''Theistic evolution fails traditional theistic religion by not allowing for the continued intervention of a creative cause or power. Theistic evolution can get you knowledge "of God" only through faith by denying natural revelation. But without natural revelation, there can be no rational basis for belief in a God who actually reveals Himself through nature. By embracing Naturalism, and its rejection of the supernatural, theistic evolution denies a rational basis for belief in God and a basis for our faith in the resurrection of Jesus Christ.''"</ref><ref>, p. 36 of ''Evolution and Society'', Volume 2 of ''Scientific Facts Against Evolution-Origin of the Universe: 3 Volume Encyclopedia'' states, of evolution and Christianity, "''there can be no reconciliation between the two. One view stands for fighting, warfare against the supposed weaker ones, and atheism; the other is for peace, self-sacrifice for the good of others, and belief and trust in the Creator God...Even evolutionists and atheists have declared that their creeds are totally different than those of Christianity.''" Also in the article on pages 39-41 of the same volume, "''In spite of clear-cut statements by evolutionists that "evolution IS atheism," many denominations today accept one form or another of evolutionary theory.''"</ref> | |||
{{primary sources|section|date=February 2020}} | |||
A fundamental part of `Abdul-Bahá's teachings on evolution is the belief that all life came from the ]: "the origin of all material life is one..."<ref>{{harvnb|Effendi|1912|p=350}}</ref>{{Incomplete short citation|date=December 2016}} He states that from this sole origin, the complete diversity of life was generated: "Consider the world of created beings, how varied and diverse they are in species, yet with one sole origin"<ref>{{harvnb|ʻAbdu'l-Bahá|1912|pp= 51–52}}</ref> He explains that a slow, gradual process led to the development of complex entities: | |||
{{blockquote|he growth and development of all beings is gradual; this is the universal divine organization and the natural system. The ] does not at once become a ]; the ] does not at once become a man; the mineral does not suddenly become a stone. No, they grow and develop gradually and attain the limit of perfection<ref>{{harvnb|ʻAbdu'l-Bahá|1908|pp=198–99}}</ref>}} | |||
However, not all religious organizations find support for evolution incompatible with their religious faith. For example, there are several religious organizations that have issued statements advocating the teaching of evolution in public schools.<ref></ref>In addition, the ], Dr. ], issued statements in support of evolution in 2006.<ref></ref> The ] is a signed statement by 10,000 American Christian clergy of different denominations rejecting creationism organized in 2004. Molleen Matsumura of the ] found, of Americans in the twelve largest Christian denominations, at least 77% belong to churches that support evolution education (and that at one point, this figure was as high as 89.6%).<ref>{{harvnb|Matsumura|1998|p=9}} notes that, "''Table 1 demonstrates that Americans in the 12 largest Christian denominations, 89.6% belong to churches that support evolution education! Indeed, many of the statements in ''Voices'' insist quite strongly that evolution must be included in science education and "creation science" must be excluded. Even if we subtract the ], which has changed its view of evolution since ] and might take a different position now, the percentage those in denominations supporting evolution is still a substantial 77%. Furthermore, many other Christian and non-Christian denominations, including the ] and the National Sikh Center, have shown some degree of support for evolution education (as defined by inclusion in 'Voices' or the "Joint Statement").''" Matsumura produced her table from a June, 1998 article titled ''Believers: Dynamic Dozen'' put out by Religion News Services which in turn cites the ''1998 Yearbook of American and Canadian Churches''. Matsurmura's calculations include the ] based on a brief they filed in ], where the SBC took a position it has since changed, according to Matsurmura. See also {{harvnb|NCSE|2002}}.</ref> These churches include the ], ], ], ], ], ], the ], the ], and others.<ref><!-- This editorial mischaracterizes the Matsurmura|1998 article--></ref><ref>{{harvnb|Matsumura|1998|p=9}}</ref> | |||
===Catholic Church=== | |||
Michael Shermer argued in Scientific American in October 2006 that evolution supports concepts like family values, avoiding lies, fidelity, moral codes and the rule of law. Shermer also suggests that evolution gives more support to the notion of an omnipotent creator, rather than a tinkerer with limitations based on a human model.<ref name=Shermer>, Michael Shermer, Scientific American, October 2006.</ref> | |||
The 1950 encyclical '']'' advocated scepticism towards evolution without explicitly rejecting it; this was substantially amended by Pope John-Paul II in 1996 in an address to the Pontifical Academy of Sciences in which he said, "Today, almost half a century after publication of the encyclical, new knowledge has led to the recognition of the theory of evolution as more than a hypothesis."<ref>Pope John Paul II, Speech to the Pontifical Academy of Sciences, October 23, 1996</ref> Between 2000 and 2002 the ] found that "Converging evidence from many studies in the physical and biological sciences furnishes mounting support for some theory of evolution to account for the development and diversification of life on earth, while controversy continues over the pace and mechanisms of evolution."<ref> {{webarchive |url=https://web.archive.org/web/20140621050711/https://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/cti_documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_20040723_communion-stewardship_en.html |date=June 21, 2014 }}, ].</ref> This statement was published by the ] in July 2004 by the authority of Cardinal Ratzinger (who became ]) who was the president of the Commission at the time. | |||
The ] has not made an authoritative statement on intelligent design, and has permitted arguments on both sides of the issue. In 2005, Cardinal ] of Vienna appeared to endorse intelligent design when he denounced philosophically materialist interpretations of evolution.<ref>Tom Heneghan. "Catholics and Evolution: Interview with Cardinal Christoph Schönborn", ''BeliefNet'', Jan. 5, 2006 </ref> In an op-ed in the ] he said "Evolution in the sense of common ancestry might be true, but evolution in the neo-Darwinian sense - an unguided, unplanned process of random variation and natural selection - is not."<ref> Finding Design in Nature by Christoph Schönborn</ref> | |||
===Evolution and the Roman Catholic Church=== | |||
] are compatible according to the Church. On the 12 August 1950, the ] accepted that the ‘doctrine of evolution’ was a valid scientific inquiry, stated by Pope Pius XII in the encyclical ] saying “research and discussions… take place with regard to the doctrine of evolution”. In the same encyclical the ] holds that a Catholic can believe in the creation account found in sacred scripture. However, the encyclical rejects what it described as some “fictitious tenets of evolution”. Following this announcement Catholic schools began teaching evolution.{{Fact|Level of support for evolution |date=February 2007}} | |||
In the January 16–17 2006 edition of the official ] newspaper '']'', ] evolutionary biology Professor ] wrote an article agreeing with the judge's ruling in '']'' and stating that ] was unscientific.<ref>, ] article, January 20, 2006</ref><ref>, Ian Fisher and Cornelia Dean, New York Times, January 19, 2006.</ref> ] Father ], former director of the ], has also denounced intelligent design.<ref> {{webarchive |url=https://web.archive.org/web/20130323080822/http://www.catholic.org/national/national_story.php?id=18503 |date=March 23, 2013 }}, Mark Lombard, 1/30/2006, Catholic Online</ref> | |||
In 1996 ] gave a message to the Pontifical Academy of Sciences in which he said “Today, almost half a century after publication of the encyclical, new knowledge has led to the recognition of the theory of evolution as more than a hypothesis.”<ref> Pope John Paul II, Speech to the Pontifical Academy of Sciences, October 23, 1996 </ref> | |||
===Sikhism=== | |||
Between 2000 and 2002 the ] found that “Converging evidence from many studies in the physical and biological sciences furnishes mounting support for some theory of evolution to account for the development and diversification of life on earth, while controversy continues over the pace and mechanisms of evolution.”<ref> , ]. </ref> This statement was published by the ] on July 2004 by the authority of ] who was actually the President of the Commission while he was a Cardinal. | |||
The Sikh ] explicitly states that the Universe and its processes are created by, and subject to, the laws of Nature. Furthermore, the name that is used by Sikhs for God, ], is literally translated as "the Wonderful Teacher",<ref>{{Cite web|url=https://www.thoughtco.com/waheguru-wondrous-enlightener-2993088|title=What is the Meaning of Sikhism Term Waheguru?}}</ref> implying that these laws are, in principle at least, at least partially discernible by human inquiry. One of the ] that observant Sikhs recite daily describes the orbit of the Earth as being caused by those same laws (and not some mythological cause).<ref>{{Cite web|url=http://www.srigranth.org/servlet/gurbani.gurbani?Action=Page&Param=3&english=t&id=115#l115|title=Sri Granth: Sri Guru Granth Sahib}}</ref> Thus, the scientific world-view, which includes the Darwinian theory of evolution, is compatible with traditional ] belief. | |||
===Hinduism=== | |||
The ] has not yet made an authoritative statement on intelligent design, and has permitted arguments on both sides of the issue. In 2005, Cardinal ] of Vienna appeared to endorse intelligent design when he denounced philosophically materialist interpretations of evolution.<ref>Tom Heneghan. "Catholics and Evolution: Interview with Cardinal Christoph Schönborn," ''BeliefNet'', Jan. 5, 2006 </ref> | |||
{{Main|Hindu views on evolution}} | |||
Hindus believe in the concept of evolution of life on Earth.<ref> Dave Hernandez - Michigan State University</ref> The concepts of ]—different incarnations of God starting from simple organisms and progressively becoming complex beings—and ] are generally cited as instances of Hindu acceptance of evolution.{{citation needed|date=August 2016}} | |||
===US religious denominations=== | |||
In the January 16-17 2006 edition of the official ] newspaper ], ] evolutionary biology Professor ] wrote an article agreeing with the judge's ruling in ] and stating that ] was unscientific.<ref>, ] article, January 20, 2006</ref><ref>, Ian Fisher and Cornelia Dean, New York Times, January 19, 2006.</ref> ] Father ], former director of the ], has also denounced intelligent design.<ref>, Mark Lombard, 1/30/2006, Catholic Online</ref> | |||
In the United States, many Protestant denominations promote creationism, preach against evolution, and sponsor lectures and debates on the subject. Denominations that explicitly advocate creationism instead of evolution or "Darwinism" include the ],<ref>{{cite web |title=The doctrine of creation |url=https://ag.org/Beliefs/Position-Papers/The-Doctrine-of-Creation |website=Assemblies of God |access-date=3 November 2023}}</ref> the ], ],<ref>{{cite web |title=Brief Statement of LCMS Doctrinal Position - The Lutheran Church—Missouri Synod |url=https://www.lcms.org/about/beliefs/doctrine/brief-statement-of-lcms-doctrinal-position#creation |website=www.lcms.org}}</ref> ], ]es,<ref>{{Cite web |url=http://www.adventist.org/beliefs/fundamental/index.html |title=Official Seventh-day Adventist belief statement advocating creationism |access-date=2007-01-23 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20060310104717/http://www.adventist.org/beliefs/fundamental/index.html |archive-date=2006-03-10 |url-status=dead }}</ref> ], ], ],<ref>{{Cite web |url=http://www.sbc.net/resolutions/amResolution.asp?ID=967 |title=Southern Baptist Convention Resolution on Creationism |access-date=2009-06-30 |archive-date=2013-12-17 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20131217014144/http://www.sbc.net/resolutions/amResolution.asp?ID=967 |url-status=dead }}</ref> the ], and the ].<ref>{{cite web |last1=Holbird |first1=Doyle |title=My Help Comes From the Lord, the Maker of Heaven and Earth |url=https://els.org/resources/document-archive/convention-essays/essay2019-holbird/ |website=Evangelical Lutheran Synod |date=11 July 2019 |access-date=17 February 2020}}</ref> ] produce ] and ] literature to refute evolution but reject the "creationist" label, which they consider to apply only to ].<ref>{{cite journal|journal=Awake!|url=http://wol.jw.org/en/wol/d/r1/lp-e/102006321#h=8:0-14:118|title=Are Jehovah's Witnesses Creationists?|date=September 2006|page=3}}</ref><ref>{{cite book|title=Insight on the Scriptures|volume=1|page=545|publisher=Watch Tower Society}}</ref><ref>{{cite book |chapter =Science and the Genesis account |title=Was Life Created? |pages=24–27 |publisher=Watch Tower Society |url=http://cvaas.org/files/Was%20Life%20Created.pdf}}</ref><ref>{{cite book|last1=Chryssides|first1=George D.|title=Historical Dictionary of Jehovah's Witnesses|date=2008|publisher=Scarecrow Press|isbn=9780810862692|page=37|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=Xx6nUwZzeCsC&pg=PA37|language=en}}</ref> | |||
==Medicine and industry== | |||
===US Religious denominations that dispute evolution=== | |||
A common complaint of ]s is that evolution is of no value, has never been used for anything, and will never be of any use. According to many creationists, nothing would be lost by getting rid of evolution, and science and industry might even benefit.<ref>{{cite journal | url = http://www.icr.org/index.php?module=articles&action=view&ID=252 | title = Evolution - Useful or Useless? | first = George | last = Lindsey | journal = Impact | volume = #148 |date=1985-10-01 | access-date = 2007-10-22 |format = asp }}</ref><ref>{{cite journal | url = http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v20/i4/evolution.asp | title = Evolution and practical science | first = Carl | last = Wieland | journal = Creation | volume = 20 | issue = 4 | pages = 4 |date=1999-09-01 | access-date = 2007-10-22 |format = asp |archive-url = https://web.archive.org/web/20070929104420/http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v20/i4/evolution.asp |archive-date = September 29, 2007}}</ref><ref>{{cite journal | url = http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v20/i4/french.asp | title = French creation interview with French scientist Dr André Eggen | first = Ken | last = Ham | journal = Creation | volume = 20 | issue = 4 | pages = 17–19 |date=1998-09-01 | access-date = 2007-10-22 | format = asp }}</ref> | |||
On the other hand, in the U.S., many Protestant denominations promote creationism, preach against evolution from the pulpits, and sponsor lectures and debates on the subject. A list of denominations that explicitly advocate creationism instead of Darwinism or evolution include the ],<ref>{{harvnb|GCAG|1977}}, General Council of the Assemblies of Godofficial assertion of creationism</ref> the ],<ref></ref> the ], the ], ],<ref>{{harvnb|Barry|2001|p=60-61}}</ref> ], ]es,<ref></ref> ], ], and the ].<ref></ref> | |||
In fact, evolution is being put to practical use in industry and widely used on a daily basis by researchers in ], ], ], and ] to both formulate hypotheses about biological systems for the purposes of experimental design, as well as to rationalise observed data and prepare applications.<ref name=nihrecord/><ref>{{cite book |author1=Williams, George |author2=Nesse, Randolph M. |title=Why we get sick: the new science of Darwinian medicine |publisher=Vintage Books |location=New York |date=1996 |isbn=978-0-679-74674-4 |page=304}}</ref><ref name=applications>{{cite web | url = http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CA/CA215.html | title = Index to Creationist claims: Claim CA215 | work = ] | access-date = 2007-10-22 |date=2005-10-04 |editor-last = Isaak |editor-first = Mark }}</ref><ref name=Mindell>{{cite book |author=Mindell, David A. |title=The evolving world: evolution in everyday life |publisher=Harvard University Press |location=Cambridge |date=2006 |isbn=978-0-674-02191-4 |url-access=registration |url=https://archive.org/details/evolvingworldevo00mind }}</ref> As of May 2019 there are 554,965 scientific papers in ] that mention 'evolution'.<ref name=pubmed>{{cite web | url = https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/?term=evolution | title = NCBI PubMed | work = ] | access-date = 2012-06-25 | date = 2012-06-25}}</ref> Pharmaceutical companies utilize biological evolution in their development of new products, and also use these medicines to combat evolving bacteria and viruses.<ref name=applications/> | |||
==Support for evolution in medicine and industry== | |||
A common complaint of ]s is that evolution is of no value, has never been used for anything, and will never be of any use. According to many creationists, nothing would be lost by getting rid of evolution, and science and industry might even benefit.<ref>, George Lindsey, Impact, #148, October 1985, ] website</ref><ref>, Carl Wieland, Creation 20(4):4, September 1998.</ref><ref>, Ken Ham, Creation 20(4):17–19, September 1998</ref> | |||
Because of the perceived value of evolution in applications, there have been some expressions of support for evolution on the part of ]. In ], there has been some widespread concern in the corporate and academic communities that a move to weaken the teaching of evolution in schools will hurt the state's ability to recruit the best talent, particularly in the ] industry.<ref>{{cite web | url = http://www.redorbit.com/news/health/265482/do_scientists_see_kansas_missouri_as_antiscience | title = Do Scientists See Kansas, Missouri As 'Anti-Science'? | first = Jason | last = Gertzen |author2=Stafford, Diane | work = The Kansas City Star |date=2005-10-08 | access-date = 2007-10-22 |archive-url = https://web.archive.org/web/20071117074042/http://www.redorbit.com/news/health/265482/do_scientists_see_kansas_missouri_as_antiscience |archive-date = November 17, 2007}}</ref> Paul Hanle of the ] warned that the ] risks falling behind in the ] race with other nations if it does not do a better job of teaching evolution.<ref></ref> | |||
On the other hand, evolution is being put to practical use in ], ] and industry.<ref>''Why We Get Sick: The New Science of Darwinian Medicine'', Randolph Nesse and George C. Williams, Vintage Books, New York 1996.</ref><ref name=applications></ref><ref name=nihrecord/><ref name=Mindell>''The Evolving World: Evolution in Everyday Life'', David Mindell, Harvard University Press, 2006.</ref> Corporations such as pharmaceutical companies utilize biological evolution in their development of new products.<ref name=applications/> | |||
James McCarter of Divergence Incorporated stated that the work of 2001 Nobel Prize winner ] relied heavily on the use of evolutionary knowledge and predictions, both of which have significant implications for the treatment of cancers. Furthermore, McCarter concluded that 47 of the last 50 Nobel Prizes in medicine or physiology depended on an understanding of evolutionary theory (according to McCarter's unspecified personal criteria).<ref>{{cite web | url = http://ncse.com/rncse/25/3-4/evolution-is-winner-breakthroughs-prizes | format = asp | title = Evolution is a Winner - for Breakthroughs and Prizes | first = James | last = McCarter | work = National Center for Science Education | date = n.d. | access-date = 2007-10-22}}; originally published in the ], 2005-10-09.</ref> | |||
Because of the perceived value of evolution in applications, there have been some expressions of support for evolution on the part of ]. In ], there has been some widespread concern in the corporate and academic communities that a move to weaken the teaching of evolution in schools will hurt the state's ability to recruit the best talent, particularly in the ] industry.<ref></ref> Paul Hanle of the ] warned that the ] risks falling behind in the ] race with other nations if it does not do a better job of teaching ].<ref></ref> James McCarter of Divergence Incorporated states that the work of 2001 Nobel Prize winner ] which has substantial implications for combating cancer relied heavily the use of evolutionary knowledge and predictions. McCarter points out that 47 of the last 50 Nobel Prizes in medicine or physiology also depended on the use of evolutionary theory.<ref></ref> | |||
==Public support== | |||
A book review by Jerry Cohn in 2006<ref name=Cohn>''Selling Darwin'', Jerry Cohn, Nature 442, 983-984(31 August 2006)</ref> of the book ''The Evolving World: Evolution in Everyday Life'' by David Mindell<ref name=Mindell/> suggests that some of this enthusiasm might be excessive: | |||
] | |||
There does not appear to be significant correlation between believing in evolution and understanding evolutionary science.<ref>{{Citation | |||
{{quotation| | |||
| url=http://www.culturalcognition.net/blog/2014/5/24/weekend-update-youd-have-to-be-science-illiterate-to-think-b.html | |||
To some extent these excesses are not Mindell’s fault, for, if truth be told, ] hasn’t yielded many practical or ] benefits. Yes, bacteria evolve ], and yes, we must take countermeasures, but beyond that there is not much to say. Evolution cannot help us predict what new vaccines to manufacture because microbes evolve unpredictably. But hasn’t evolution helped guide animal and plant breeding? Not very much. Most improvement in crop plants and animals occurred long before we knew anything about evolution, and came about by people following the genetic principle of ‘like begets like’. Even now, as its practitioners admit, the field of quantitative genetics has been of little value in helping improve varieties. Future advances will almost certainly come from ], which is not based on evolution at all.<ref name=Cohn/>}} | |||
| title=The Cultural Cognition Project | |||
| access-date=May 28, 2014 | |||
}}</ref><ref>{{Citation | |||
| last=Shtulman | |||
| first=Andrew | |||
| title=Qualitative differences between naïve and scientific theories of evolution | |||
| journal=Cognitive Psychology | |||
| volume=52 | |||
| issue=2 | |||
| date=2006 | |||
| pages=170–194 | |||
| doi=10.1016/j.cogpsych.2005.10.001 | |||
| pmid=16337619 | |||
| s2cid=20274446 | |||
}} | |||
</ref> In some countries, creationist beliefs (or a lack of support for evolutionary theory) are relatively widespread, even garnering a majority of public opinion. A study published in '']'' compared attitudes about evolution in the United States, 32 European countries, and ]. The only country where acceptance of evolution was lower than in the United States was ] (25%). Public acceptance of evolution was most widespread (at over 80% of the population) in ], ] and ].<ref name="ScienceSurvey"/> | |||
=== Afghanistan === | |||
The organization "]" maintains a ] that ] can account for the diversity of life on earth. As of May 22, 2007, there were 224 Americans and 28 others from other countries that had signed a statement disputing "]". | |||
According to the Pew Research Center, Afghanistan has the lowest acceptance of evolution in the Muslim countries. Only 26% of people in ] accept evolution. 62% deny human evolution and believe that humans have always existed in their present form.<ref name="pewforum.org">{{Cite web | url=http://www.pewforum.org/2013/04/30/the-worlds-muslims-religion-politics-society-science-and-popular-culture/ | title=Muslim Views on Religion, Science and Popular Culture| date=2013-04-30}}</ref> | |||
=== Argentina === | |||
==Other support for evolution== | |||
According to a 2014 poll produced by the ], 71% of people in Argentina believe "humans and other living things evolved over time" while 23% believe they have "always existed in the present form."<ref name="PewLatinAmerica" /> | |||
There are also many educational organizations that have issued statements in support of the theory of evolution.<ref></ref> | |||
=== Armenia === | |||
Repeatedly, creationists and intelligent design advocates have lost suits in US courts.<ref>''Teaching About Evolution and the Nature of Science (1998)'' , National Academy of Sciences, National Academy Press, Washington DC, 1998.</ref> Here is a list of important court cases in which creationists have suffered setbacks: | |||
According to the Pew Research Center, 56 percent of Armenians deny human evolution and claim that humans have always existed in their present and only 34 percent of Armenians accept human evolution.<ref name="ReferenceA">{{Cite web | url=http://www.pewforum.org/2017/05/10/science-and-religion/ | title=Science and religion in central and eastern Europe| date=2017-05-10}}</ref> | |||
=== Australia === | |||
*1968 '']'', ]<ref>Epperson v. Arkansas, 393 U.S. 97. (1968)</ref> | |||
A 2009 ] poll showed that 23% of Australians believe "the biblical account of human origins," 42% believe in a "wholly scientific" explanation for the origins of life, while 32% believe in an evolutionary process "guided by God".<ref>{{cite web |url=https://www.smh.com.au/national/faith-what-australians-believe-in-20091218-l5qy.html |title=Faith: What Australians believe in |last=Marr |first=David |date=December 19, 2009 |work=] |location=Melbourne, Australia |archive-url=https://archive.today/20181211051311/https://www.smh.com.au/national/faith-what-australians-believe-in-20091218-l5qy.html |archive-date=December 11, 2018 |url-status=live |access-date=December 11, 2018 |df=mdy-all }}</ref><ref>{{cite web |last=Maley |first=Jacqueline |date=December 19, 2009 |title=God is still tops but angels rate well |url=http://www.theage.com.au/national/god-is-still-tops-but-angels-rate-well-20091218-l5v9.html |work=] |location=Melbourne, Australia |archive-url=https://archive.today/20120913234134/http://www.theage.com.au/national/god-is-still-tops-but-angels-rate-well-20091218-l5v9.html |archive-date=September 13, 2012 |access-date=December 18, 2009 |url-status=live |df=mdy-all }}</ref> | |||
*1981 '']'', ]<ref>Segraves v. California, No. 278978 Sacramento Superior Court (1981)</ref> | |||
*1982 '']'', U.S. ]<ref>McLean v. Arkansas Board of Education, 529 F. Supp. 1255, 50 (1982) U.S. Law Week 2412</ref> | |||
*1987 '']'', ]<ref>Edwards v. Aguillard, 482, U.S. 578, 55 (1987) U.S. Law Week 4860, S. CT. 2573, 96 L. Ed. 2d510</ref> | |||
*1990 '']'', Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals<ref>Webster v. New Lennox School District #122, 917 F.2d 1004 (7th. Cir., 1990)</ref> | |||
*1994 '']'', Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals<ref>Peloza v. Capistrano Unified School District, 37 F.3d 517 (9th Cir., 1994)</ref> | |||
*1997 '']'', United States District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana<ref>Freiler v Tangipahoa Board of Education, No. 94-3577 (E.D. La. Aug. 8, 1997)</ref> | |||
*2000 '']'', District Court for the Third Judicial District of the State of Minnesota<ref>Order Granting Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment and Memorandum, Court File Nr. CX-99-793, District Court for the Third Judicial District of the State of Minnesota </ref> | |||
*2005 '']'', US Federal Court<ref>Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District No. 04-2688 (M.D. Pa. Dec. 20, 2005)</ref> | |||
*2006 ] US District Court Eastern District of California<ref></ref> | |||
A 2013 survey conducted by Auspoll and the ] found that 80% of Australians believe in evolution (70% believe it is currently occurring, 10% believe in evolution but do not think it is currently occurring), 12% were not sure and 9% stated they do not believe in evolution.<ref>{{cite web |url=https://www.science.org.au/files/userfiles/learning/documents/ScienceLiteracyReport2013.pdf |title=Science literacy in Australia |date=2013 |work=] }}</ref> | |||
==Public support== | |||
Creationists often claim that public support of creationism is a sign of creationism's validity as a scientific theory.<ref>No scientific issue is ever decided in this manner. The only thing that matters in science is if the data available match the predictions of a given scientific theory. This is called '']'' (''Introduction to Logic'', I.M. Copi, Macmillan, New York, 1978). As pointed out by creationist Bert Thompson, "''truth never is determined by popular opinion or majority vote''" </ref> In some countries, creationist beliefs have made substantial inroads with the public, even garnering the majority of public opinion. Given the political power this public support represents, it is likely that there will be more conflict and controversy in the future. | |||
=== Belarus === | |||
A study published in '']'', compared attitudes about evolution from the United States, 32 European countries (including Turkey) and ]. The only country where acceptance of evolution was lower than in the United States was ] (25%). Public acceptance of evolution is most prevalent in ], ] and ] at 80% of the population.<ref name=ScienceSurvey>{{cite journal|journal=Science|date=] ]|volume=313|issue=5788|pages=765-766|title=Public Acceptance of Evolution|id={{doi|10.1126/science.1126746}}}}</ref> (See the ) | |||
According to the Pew Research Center, 63 percent of respondents in Belarus accept the theory of evolution while 23 percent of them deny evolution and claim that "humans have always existed in their present form."<ref name="ReferenceA" /> | |||
=== |
===Bolivia=== | ||
According to a 2014 poll by the Pew Research Center, 44% of people in Bolivia believe "humans and other living things evolved over time" while 39% believe they have "always existed in the present form."<ref name="PewLatinAmerica" /> | |||
A 2006 UK poll on the "origin and development of life" asked participants to choose between three different perspectives on the origin of life: 22% chose ], 17% opted for ], 48% selected ] theory and the rest did not know. As the poll lacked nuanced ] and ] as well as forced participants to make choices as though there were only three options, its results do not necessarily indicate the all possible views of the general public concerning mainstream science or religious alternatives.<ref></ref><ref></ref> | |||
===Brazil=== | |||
In a 2010 poll, 59% of respondents said they believe in ], or evolution guided by God. A further 8% believe in evolution without divine intervention, while 25% were creationists. Support for creationism was stronger among the poor and the least educated.<ref></ref> According to a 2014 poll produced by the Pew Research Center, 66% of Brazilians agree that humans evolved over time and 29% think they have always existed in the present form.<ref name="PewLatinAmerica">{{cite report|url=http://www.pewforum.org/2014/11/13/chapter-8-religion-and-science/|title=Religion in Latin America|publisher=Pew Research Center|date=November 13, 2014}}</ref> | |||
===Canada=== | |||
In a 2019 nationwide poll, 61% of Canadians believe that humans evolved from less advanced life forms over millions of years, while 23% believe that God created human beings in their present form within the last 10,000 years.<ref name="Research Co."></ref> | |||
===Chile=== | |||
According to a 2014 poll by the Pew Research Center, 69% of people in ] believe "humans and other living things evolved over time" while 26% believe they have "always existed in the present form."<ref name="PewLatinAmerica" /> | |||
===Colombia=== | |||
According to a 2014 poll by the Pew Research Center, 59% of people in ] believe "humans and other living things evolved over time" while 35% believe they have "always existed in the present form."<ref name="PewLatinAmerica" /> | |||
=== Costa Rica === | |||
According to a 2014 poll by the Pew Research Center, 56% of people in ] believe "humans and other living things evolved over time" while 38% believe they have "always existed in the present form."<ref name="PewLatinAmerica" /> | |||
=== Czech Republic === | |||
According to the Pew Research Center, the ] has the highest acceptance of evolution in Eastern Europe. 83 percent people in the ] believe that humans evolved over time. | |||
=== Dominican Republic === | |||
According to a 2014 poll by the Pew Research Center, 41% of people in ] believe "humans and other living things evolved over time" while 56% believe they have "always existed in the present form."<ref name="PewLatinAmerica" /> | |||
=== Ecuador === | |||
According to a 2014 poll by the Pew Research Center, 50% of people in ] believe "humans and other living things evolved over time" while 44% believe they have "always existed in the present form."<ref name="PewLatinAmerica" /> | |||
=== El Salvador === | |||
According to a 2014 poll by the Pew Research Center, 46% of people in ] believe "humans and other living things evolved over time" while 45% believe they have "always existed in the present form."<ref name="PewLatinAmerica" /> | |||
=== Estonia === | |||
According to the Pew Research Center, 74% of ]ns accept the theory of evolution while 21% deny it and claim that "humans have always existed in their present form." | |||
=== Georgia === | |||
According to the Pew Research Center, 58 percent of ] accept the theory of evolution while 34 percent of Georgians deny the theory of evolution.<ref name="ReferenceA" /> | |||
=== Guatemala === | |||
According to a 2014 poll by the Pew Research Center, 55% of people in ] believe "humans and other living things evolved over time" while 38% believe they have "always existed in the present form."<ref name="PewLatinAmerica" /> | |||
=== Honduras === | |||
According to a 2014 poll by the Pew Research Center, 49% of people in ] believe "humans and other living things evolved over time" while 45% believe they have "always existed in the present form."<ref name="PewLatinAmerica" /> | |||
=== Hungary === | |||
According to the Pew Research Center, 69 percent of ] accept the theory of evolution and 21 percent of Hungarians deny human evolution.<ref name="ReferenceA" /> | |||
=== Kazakhstan === | |||
According to the Pew Research Center, ] has the highest acceptance of evolution in the Muslim countries. 79% of | |||
people in Kazakhstan accept the theory of evolution.<ref name="pewforum.org" /> | |||
=== India === | |||
According to a 2009 survey conducted by the British Council, 77% of people in ] agree that enough scientific evidence exists to support evolution.<ref name="ncse India"> July 2nd, 2009, ]</ref><ref>{{Cite news|date=July 1, 2009|title=Darwin and unnatural disbelief|work=Los Angeles Times|url=https://opinion.latimes.com/opinionla/2009/07/darwin-and-unnatural-disbelief.html|url-status=live|access-date=May 30, 2020|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20200112170407/https://opinion.latimes.com/opinionla/2009/07/darwin-and-unnatural-disbelief.html|archive-date=Jan 12, 2020}}</ref> Also, 85% of God believing Indians who know about evolution agree that life on earth evolved over time as a result of natural selection.<ref name="ncse India" /> | |||
In the same 2009 survey carried among 10 major nations, the highest proportion that agreed that evolutionary theories alone should be taught in schools was in India, at 49%.<ref> ]; Monday, 26 October 2009. The 10 nations among which the survey was carried out were: Argentina, China, Egypt, Great Britain, India, Mexico, Russia, South Africa, Spain, USA.</ref><ref>{{Cite web|last=|first=|date=June 30, 2009|title=Results of Global British Council Global Education Darwin Survey|url=https://ncse.ngo/files/pub/evolution/09-Survey-BritishCouncil-globaleducationDarwineducation-MORIEducationDataTables-FINAL.pdf|archive-url=|archive-date=|access-date=January 14, 2021|website=British Council}}</ref> | |||
In a survey conducted across 12 states in India, public acceptance of evolution stood at 68.5%.<ref>{{Cite news|url=https://indianexpress.com/article/explained/explained-snippets-two-of-three-indians-accept-evolution-led-by-four-of-five-in-delhi-says-study-5330037/|title=Explained snippets: Two of three Indians accept evolution, led by four of five in Delhi, says study|date=2018-08-29|work=The Indian Express|access-date=2018-08-31|language=en-US}}</ref><ref>{{Cite journal|last=Bast|first=Felix|date=2018|title=Public Acceptance of Evolution in India|url=http://op.niscair.res.in/index.php/JST/article/viewFile/21415/465464783|journal=Journal of Scientific Temper|volume=6|pages=24–38|via=}}</ref> | |||
In 2023, NCERT, under the rationalization scheme, removed Darwin's theory of evolution from class 10th school textbooks. Only students who take opt for biology in class 11th will be taught Darwin's theory of evolution.<ref>{{cite news |title=NCERT Class 10th new syllabus 2023: Now, Evolution and Periodic table removed from CBSE science textbooks| url=https://www.indiatvnews.com/education/news/ncert-class-10th-new-syllabus-2023-now-evolution-and-periodic-table-removes-from-cbse-science-textbooks-2023-06-01-873801 | agency=India Tv | access-date=5 June 2023 | date=2 June 2023}}</ref><ref>{{cite news |title=Darwin's theory of evolution removed from school books in India |url=https://www.abc.net.au/radionational/programs/sundayextra/india-darwin/102280810 |agency=ABC Australia |access-date=11 May 2023 |date=30 Apr 2023}}</ref> | |||
=== Indonesia === | |||
A 2009 survey conducted by the McGill researchers and their international collaborators found that 85% of ]n high school students agreed with the statement, "Millions of fossils show that life has existed for billions of years and changed over time."<ref name="nytimes-islam">{{Cite news|url=https://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/03/science/03islam.html|title=Creationism, Without a Young Earth, Emerges in the Islamic World|last=Chang|first=Kenneth|date=2009-11-02|work=The New York Times|access-date=2017-04-24|issn=0362-4331}}</ref> | |||
=== Israel === | |||
The theory of evolution is a 'hard sell' in schools in ]. More than half of Israeli ] accept the ] while more than 40% deny human evolution & claim that humans have always existed in their present form.<ref>{{Cite web | url=http://www.pewforum.org/2016/03/08/education-values-and-science/pf_2016-03-08_israel-08-03 | title=About half of Israeli Jews believe in evolution | Pew Research Center}}</ref><ref>{{Cite web | url=https://www.timesofisrael.com/evolution-a-hard-sell-among-israeli-jews-pew-study-finds/ | title=Evolution a hard sell among Israeli Jews, Pew study finds| website=]}}</ref> | |||
=== Latvia === | |||
According to the Pew Research Center, 66 percent of ]ns accept the theory of evolution while 25 percent of Latvians deny evolution and claim that "humans have always existed in their present form."<ref name="ReferenceA" /> | |||
=== Lithuania === | |||
According to the Pew Research Center 54 percent of ]ns accept the theory of evolution while 34 percent of them deny evolution and claim that "humans have always existed in their present form."<ref name="ReferenceA" /> | |||
=== Mexico === | |||
According to a 2014 poll by the Pew Research Center, 64% of people in ] believe "humans and other living things evolved over time" while 32% believe they have "always existed in the present form."<ref name="PewLatinAmerica" /> | |||
=== Moldova === | |||
According to the Pew Research Center, 49 percent of ]ns accept the theory of evolution while 42 percent of Moldovan deny the theory of evolution and claim that "humans have always existed in the present form."<ref name="ReferenceA" /> | |||
=== Nicaragua === | |||
According to a 2014 poll by the Pew Research Center, 47% of people in ] believe "humans and other living things evolved over time" while 48% believe they have "always existed in the present form."<ref name="PewLatinAmerica" /> | |||
=== Norway === | |||
According to a 2008 Norstat poll for ], 59% of the ] population fully accept evolution, 24% somewhat agree with the theory, 4% somewhat disagree with the theory while 8% do not accept evolution. 4% did not know.<ref>Chris Veløy (13 March 2008) NRK. Retrieved 14 January 2014 {{in lang|no}}</ref> | |||
=== Pakistan === | |||
A 2009 survey conducted by the McGill researchers and their international collaborators found that 86% of ]i high school students agreed with the statement, "Millions of fossils show that life has existed for billions of years and changed over time."<ref name="nytimes-islam" /> | |||
=== Panama === | |||
According to a 2014 poll by the Pew Research Center, 61% of people in Panama believe "humans and other living things evolved over time" while 34% believe they have "always existed in the present form."<ref name="PewLatinAmerica" /> | |||
=== Paraguay === | |||
According to a 2014 poll by the Pew Research Center, 59% of people in Paraguay believe "humans and other living things evolved over time" while 30% believe they have "always existed in the present form."<ref name="PewLatinAmerica" /> | |||
=== Peru === | |||
According to a 2014 poll by the Pew Research Center, 51% of people in Peru believe "humans and other living things evolved over time" while 39% believe they have "always existed in the present form."<ref name="PewLatinAmerica" /> | |||
=== Poland === | |||
According to the Pew Research Center, 61 percent of ] accept the theory of evolution while 23 percent of Poles deny the theory of evolution and claim that "humans have always existed in their present form."<ref name="ReferenceA" /> | |||
=== Russia === | |||
According to the Pew Research Center, 65 percent of ]ns accept the theory of evolution while 26 percent of Russians deny the theory of evolution and claim that "humans have always existed in their present form."<ref name="ReferenceA" /> | |||
=== Serbia === | |||
According to the Pew Research Center, 61 percent of ]ns accept the theory of evolution while 29 percent of respondents in Serbia deny the theory of evolution while and claim that "humans have always existed in their present form."<ref name="ReferenceA" /> | |||
=== Turkey === | |||
In 2017, the government removed the theory of evolution from the school curriculum.<ref>{{cite news |last1=Kroet |first1=Cynthia |title=Darwin cut from Turkish schools |url=https://www.politico.eu/article/darwin-cut-from-turkish-schools/ |access-date=11 May 2023 |agency=Politico |date=July 18, 2017}}</ref> | |||
=== United Kingdom === | |||
A 2006 ] poll on the "origin and development of life" asked participants to choose between three different explanations for the origin of life: 22% chose (Young Earth) ], 17% opted for ] ("certain features of living things are best explained by the intervention of a supernatural being, e.g. God"), 48% selected evolution theory (with a divine role explicitly excluded) and the rest did not know.<ref> BBC 26 January 2006</ref><ref> IPSOS-Mori</ref> A 2009 poll found that only 38% of Britons believe God played no role in evolution.<ref>{{Cite web|url=https://www.ipsos-mori.com/Assets/Docs/Polls/poll-darwin-survey-shows-international-consensus-on-acceptance-of-evolution.pdf|title=Project Darwin Omnibus - Great Britain|date=April 2009|website=Ipsos|access-date=24 April 2017|url-status=dead|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20160305194947/https://www.ipsos-mori.com/Assets/Docs/Polls/poll-darwin-survey-shows-international-consensus-on-acceptance-of-evolution.pdf|archive-date=5 March 2016}}</ref> In a 2012 poll, 69% of Britons believe that humans evolved from less advanced life forms, while 17% believe that God created human beings in their present forms within the last 10,000 years.<ref name="Angus Reid Polls">{{Cite web |url=http://www.angusreidglobal.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/09/2012.09.05_CreEvo.pdf |title=Angus Reid Polls |access-date=2015-04-06 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20170621030930/http://angusreidglobal.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/09/2012.09.05_CreEvo.pdf |archive-date=2017-06-21 |url-status=dead }}</ref> | |||
===United States=== | ===United States=== | ||
] courts have ruled in favor of teaching evolution in science classrooms, and against teaching creationism, in numerous cases such as '']'', '']'', '']'' and '']''. | |||
{| class="wikitable" cellspacing=0 cellpadding=3 | |||
|+'''<big>1997 Gallup Poll Results</big>'''<ref></ref> | |||
A prominent organization in the United States behind the ] is the ], which, through its ], conducts a number of ] aimed at influencing the public and policy makers in order to advance its position in ]. The Discovery Institute claims that because there is a significant lack of ] for evolution, that ] should, as their campaign states, "]", although there is no controversy over the validity of evolution within the scientific community. | |||
! style="background:#d0e5f5;color:black" |US Group | |||
!! style="background:#d0e5f5;color:black" |] !! style="background:#d0e5f5;color:black"| Belief in ]-guided ]!! style="background:#d0e5f5;color:black"| Belief in ] without ] | |||
{| class="wikitable" style="text-align: center;" | |||
|+2009 Pew Research<ref name="Pew-2009-07-09-5">{{cite web | |||
|url=http://www.people-press.org/2009/07/09/section-5-evolution-climate-change-and-other-issues/ | |||
|title=Evolution, Climate Change and Other Issues | |||
|access-date=2013-03-06 | |||
|date=2009-07-09 | |||
|publisher=PewResearch | |||
}}</ref> | |||
! style="background:#d0e5f5;color:black" |US Group | |||
! style="background:#d0e5f5;color:black" ! |] !! style="background:#d0e5f5;color:black" | Belief in evolution ]!! style="background:#d0e5f5;color:black" | Belief in evolution due to natural processes!! style="background:#d0e5f5;color:black" | NA | |||
|- | |- | ||
| |
| align="left" |Public||31%||22%||32%||15% | ||
|- | |- | ||
| |
| align="left" |Scientists||2%||8%||87%||3% | ||
|} | |} | ||
{| class="wikitable sortable" style="text-align: center;" | |||
There have been numerous public surveys to try to ascertain levels of belief in evolution. The results of these polls are not the same in all countries that are surveyed. The US has one of the highest levels among industrialized countries of public belief in biblical or other religious accounts of the origin of the diversity of life forms on earth.<ref> Result of 2004 Gallup poll showing about 45% of the US public believe in the biblical creation account, and only 1/3 believe in Darwinian theory.</ref> | |||
|+2014 Gallup poll<ref name="gallup170822">{{cite web | |||
|url=http://www.gallup.com/poll/170822/believe-creationist-view-human-origins.aspx | |||
|title=In U.S., 42% Believe Creationist View of Human Origins | |||
|access-date=2015-07-29 | |||
|last=Newport | |||
|first=Frank | |||
|date=2014-06-02 | |||
|publisher=Gallup | |||
}}</ref> | |||
! style="background:#d0e5f5;color:black" |Religious Institution Attendance | |||
According to a ] ] poll,<ref name="Gallup2007">See .</ref> about 43% of American believe that "God created human beings pretty much in their present form at one time within the last 10,000 years or so." This is only slightly less than the 46% reported in a ] ] poll.<ref name="timespoll">{{cite news | url = http://washingtontimes.com/national/20060608-111826-4947r.htm | title = Americans Still Hold Faith In Divine Creation | source = Washington Times (on-line) | last = Harper | first = Jennifer | date = 2006-06-09 }}{{waybackdate|site = http://washingtontimes.com/national/20060608-111826-4947r.htm|date=20070312052457}}</ref> Only 14% believe that "humans being have developed over millions of years from less advanced forms of life, but God had no part in this process."<ref name="Gallup2007" /> Belief in creationism is inversely correlated to education; of those with post-graduate degrees, only 22% believe in strict creationism.<ref name="timespoll" />A poll in the year 2000 done for ] found 70% of the American public felt that evolution was compatible with a belief in God.<ref name=pfaw/> | |||
! style="background:#d0e5f5;color:black" ! |] !! style="background:#d0e5f5;color:black" | Belief in ]!! style="background:#d0e5f5;color:black" | Belief in evolution without God | |||
|- | |||
| align="left" |Attend church weekly||69%||24%||1% | |||
|- | |||
| align="left" |Attend church nearly weekly/monthly||47%||39%||9% | |||
|- | |||
| align="left" |Seldom/never attend church||23%||32%||34% | |||
|} | |||
The US has one of the highest levels of public belief in biblical or other religious accounts of the origins of life on Earth among industrialized countries.<ref> Result of 2004 Gallup poll showing about 45% of the US public believe in the biblical creation account, and only 1/3 believe in Darwinian theory.</ref> However, according to the ], 62 percent of adults in the United States accept human evolution while 34 percent of adults believe that humans have always existed in their present form. The poll involved over 35,000 adults in the United States. However acceptance of evolution varies per state. For example, the State of ] has the highest acceptance of evolution of any other State in the ]. 79% people in Vermont accept human evolution. While ] with 43% has the lowest acceptance of evolution of any US state.<ref>{{Cite web | url=http://www.pewforum.org/2013/12/30/publics-views-on-human-evolution/ | title=Public's Views on Human Evolution | Pew Research Center| date=2013-12-30}}</ref> | |||
Edward Larson and Larry Witham in 1998 published the results of a survey of the members of the US ] showing that 93% of those survey respondents did not believe in a personal God.<ref>''Leading Scientists Still Reject God'', Edward J. Larson and Larry Witham, Nature, July 23, 1998</ref> | |||
<ref>{{Cite web | url=http://www.pewforum.org/religious-landscape-study/compare/views-about-human-evolution/by/state/ | title=Religion in America: U.S. Religious Data, Demographics and Statistics | Pew Research Center}}</ref> | |||
According to a 2021 study, in 2019, 54% of Americans agreed with the statement: "Human beings, as we know them today, developed from earlier species of animals".<ref name=":0">{{Cite web |date=2021-08-20 |title=Study: Evolution now accepted by majority of Americans |url=https://news.umich.edu/study-evolution-now-accepted-by-majority-of-americans/ |access-date=2022-03-28 |website=] News |language=en-US}}</ref> A 2019 ] creationism survey found that 40% of adults in the United States inclined to the belief that "God created humans in their present form at one time within the last 10,000 years" when asked for their beliefs regarding the origin and development of human beings.<ref>{{Cite web | url=https://news.gallup.com/poll/261680/americans-believe-creationism.aspx| date=July 26, 2019| title=40% of Americans Believe in Creationism}}</ref> 22% believed that "human beings have developed over millions of years from less advanced forms of life, but God had no part in this process", despite 49% of respondents indicating they believed in evolution. Belief in creationism is inversely correlated to education; only 22% of those with post-graduate degrees believe in strict creationism.<ref name="timespoll">{{cite news|url=http://washingtontimes.com/national/20060608-111826-4947r.htm |title=Americans Still Hold Faith In Divine Creation |work=Washington Times (on-line) |last=Harper |first=Jennifer |date=2006-06-09 |url-status=dead |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20060616013904/http://www.washingtontimes.com/national/20060608-111826-4947r.htm |archive-date=2006-06-16 }}</ref> The level of support for strict creationism could be even lower when poll results are adjusted after comparison with other polls with questions that more specifically account for uncertainty and ambivalence.<ref>{{cite journal |last1=Branch |first1=Glenn |author-link1=Glenn Branch |title=Understanding Gallup's Latest Poll on Evolution |journal=] |date=2017 |volume=41 |issue=5 |pages=5–6}}</ref> A 2000 poll for ] found that 70% of the American public thought that evolution is compatible with a belief in God.<ref name="pfaw">{{cite web | url = http://www.pfaw.org/pfaw/general/default.aspx?oid=2097 | title = Evolution and Creationism in Public Education | publisher = People for the American Way Poll | access-date = 2007-10-29 |archive-url = https://web.archive.org/web/20070930015140/http://www.pfaw.org/pfaw/general/default.aspx?oid=2097 |archive-date = September 30, 2007}}</ref> | |||
{| class="wikitable sortable" | |||
!Political identification | |||
{| class="wikitable sortable" style="text-align: center;" | |||
!% Creationist<ref name="pew2005">2005 Pew Research Center poll</ref> | |||
|+2007 Gallup poll<ref name="gallup27847">{{cite web | |||
|url=http://www. |
|url=http://www.gallup.com/poll/27847/majority-republicans-doubt-theory-evolution.aspx | ||
|title=Majority of Republicans doubt theory of evolution | |title=Majority of Republicans doubt theory of evolution | ||
| |
|access-date=2008-06-01 | ||
|last=Newport | |last=Newport | ||
|first=Frank | |first=Frank | ||
Line 138: | Line 311: | ||
|publisher=Gallup | |publisher=Gallup | ||
}}</ref> | }}</ref> | ||
!Political identification | |||
!% belief in evolution<ref name="gallup27847" /> | |||
! |
!Do not believe in evolution | ||
!Believe in evolution | |||
!NA | |||
|- | |- | ||
|Republican | | align="left" |Republican||68%||30%||2% | ||
|60 | |||
|68 | |||
|30 | |||
|11 | |||
|- | |- | ||
|Democrat | | align="left" |Democrat||40%||57%||3% | ||
|29 | |||
|40 | |||
|57 | |||
|44 | |||
|- | |- | ||
|Independent | | align="left" |Independent||37%||61%||2% | ||
| | |||
|37 | |||
|61 | |||
|} | |} | ||
{| class="wikitable sortable" style="text-align: center;" | |||
A 2005 Pew Research Center poll found that 70 percent of evangelical Christians felt that living organisms have not changed since their creation, but only 31% of Catholics and 32 percent of mainline Protestants had the same opinion. A 2005 Harris Poll<ref name=Harrispoll>, The Harris Poll® #52, July 6, 2005.</ref> estimated that 63 percent of liberals and 37 percent of conservatives agreed that humans and other primates have a common ancestry.<ref name="Shermer" /> | |||
|+2005 Pew Research Center poll<ref name="pew2005">2005 Pew Research Center poll</ref> | |||
!Political identification | |||
===Examining the level of public support=== | |||
!Creationist | |||
{{Merge|Scientific literacy|date=August 2007}} | |||
!Believe in evolution | |||
It is illuminating to examine public support of evolution and other principles in greater detail. A study by Miller et al (1997) felt fewer than 20% of Americans possessed basic ].<ref> ''Public Perceptions of Science and Technology: A Comparative Study of the European Union, the United States, Japan, and Canada.'', Miller, J. D., R. Pardo, and F. Niwa. 1997. Chicago: Chicago Academy of Sciences.</ref> A poll in the year ] done for ] found only 48% of the people polled could choose the correct definition of ] from a list.<ref name=pfaw>, results of People for the American Way Poll</ref> | |||
!NA | |||
Polls were conducted by ] at ] and ] of the ] in ], and compared to the results of a ] in 2001.<ref name=fate>''Smart People See Ghosts'', Brad Steiger, Fate Magazine, April 2006 Issue, p. 52-56; the unusual thing found by Farha and Steward was that belief in the supernatural increased with education level, contrary to many other surveys. However, that aspect of their study is not being used here.</ref> They found fairly consistent results. | |||
{| class="wikitable sortable" | |||
|+Percentage of Americans polled | |||
! | |||
!belief | |||
!not sure | |||
!belief | |||
!not sure | |||
|- | |||
! | |||
!colspan="2"|Farha-Steward | |||
!colspan="2"|] | |||
|- | |||
|psychic/] | |||
|56 | |||
|26 | |||
|54 | |||
|19 | |||
|- | |||
|] | |||
|28 | |||
|39 | |||
|50 | |||
|20 | |||
|- | |||
|]s | |||
|40 | |||
|25 | |||
|42 | |||
|16 | |||
|- | |||
|] | |||
|40 | |||
|28 | |||
|41 | |||
|16 | |||
|- | |||
|]s/spirits of the dead | |||
|39 | |||
|27 | |||
|38 | |||
|17 | |||
|- | |||
|] | |||
|24 | |||
|34 | |||
|36 | |||
|26 | |||
|- | |||
|] | |||
|17 | |||
|34 | |||
|33 | |||
|27 | |||
|- | |||
|] and ] | |||
|24 | |||
|33 | |||
|32 | |||
|23 | |||
|- | |||
|communication with the dead | |||
|16 | |||
|29 | |||
|28 | |||
|26 | |||
|- | |- | ||
| align="left" |Republican||60%||11%||29% | |||
|] | |||
|17 | |||
|26 | |||
|28 | |||
|18 | |||
|- | |- | ||
| align="left" |Democrat||29%||44%||27% | |||
|] | |||
|26 | |||
|19 | |||
|26 | |||
|15 | |||
|- | |||
|] | |||
|14 | |||
|28 | |||
|25 | |||
|20 | |||
|- | |||
|] | |||
|10 | |||
|29 | |||
|15 | |||
|21 | |||
|} | |} | ||
According to a 2021 study, in 2019, 34% of conservative Republicans and 83% of liberal Democrats accepted evolution.<ref name=":0" /> A 2005 Pew Research Center poll found that 70% of evangelical Christians believed that living organisms have not changed since their creation, but only 31% of Catholics and 32% of mainline Protestants shared this opinion. A 2005 Harris Poll<ref name="Harrispoll"> {{webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20051217080148/http://harrisinteractive.com/harris_poll/index.asp?PID=581 |date=2005-12-17 }}, The Harris Poll #52, July 6, 2005.</ref> estimated that 63% of liberals and 37% of conservatives agreed that humans and other primates have a common ancestry.<ref name="Shermer" /> | |||
Other surveys by different organizations at different times have found very similar results. A ] ] found that the general public embraced the following: 54% of people believed in ]/], 42% believed in ], 41% believed in ], 36% in ], 25% in ], and 15% in ].<ref>Skeptical Inquirer, 30, 1; 37-40</ref> A survey by Jeffrey S. Levin, associate professor at | |||
Eastern Virginia Medical School, Norfolk found that over 2/3 of the U.S. population reported having at least one mystical experience.<ref>USA Today, January 12, 1994</ref><ref name=fate/> | |||
=== Ukraine === | |||
A ] ] estimated that 71% of the people in the ] believed that the government was covering up information about ]s. A 2002 ] conducted for the ] reported that 56% thought ]s were real craft and 48% that ] had visited the ].<ref name=fate/> | |||
According to the Pew Research Center, 54 percent of respondents in ] accept the theory of evolution while 34 percent deny the theory of evolution and claim that "humans have always existed their present form."<ref name="ReferenceA" /> | |||
=== Uruguay === | |||
A ] ] survey found that 9 percent of people polled thought ] was very ], and 31 percent thought it was somewhat ]. About 32% of Americans surveyed stated that some numbers were lucky, while 46% of ] agreed with that claim. About 60% of all people polled believed in some form of ] and 30% thought that ]s were "some of the unidentified flying objects that have been reported are really space vehicles from other civilizations."<ref></ref> New Scientist reported in 2006 that almost 2/3 of Americans believe they share less than half their genes with "]", when in fact the figure is much closer to 95-99%, depending on the primates involved and the study used.<ref name=Hecht/> | |||
According to a 2014 poll produced by the Pew Research Center, 74% of people in ] believe "humans and other living things evolved over time" while 20% believe they have "always existed in the present form."<ref name="PewLatinAmerica" /> | |||
=== Venezuela === | |||
Also, as ] points out, it is also not clear how firmly held the public beliefs in ] are.<ref></ref> Most ] claims require a ] of ] and a belief in ]. However, not all Americans seem to subscribe to ]. For example, among the 15% that are ], only 47.8% believe that the ] is literally true, and 6.5% believe that the ] is an ancient book full of ] and ]. Only about 11% of ] and mainline ] believe the Bible is literally true, and only 9% of ] believe the ] is literally true. About 20% of ] and ] reported that the ] is a book of ] and ], and 52.6% of ] respondents felt the same about the ]. These figures make it clear that a large fraction of ] and ] do not subscribe to the necessary beliefs to adopt many ] principles wholeheartedly.<ref></ref> | |||
According to a 2014 poll by the Pew Research Center, 63% of people in ] believe "humans and other living things evolved over time" while 33% believe they have "always existed in the present form."<ref name="PewLatinAmerica" /> | |||
==Other support for evolution== | |||
There are other difficulties in interpreting these results because many of the survey questions are not well designed. For example, the 2005 Harris poll results included the following: | |||
There are also many educational organizations that have issued statements in support of the theory of evolution.<ref></ref> | |||
{| class="wikitable sortable" | |||
!Table 5. Where humans come from<ref name=Harrispoll/> | |||
!% | |||
|- | |||
|Human beings evolved from earlier species. | |||
|22 | |||
|- | |||
|Human beings were created directly by God. | |||
|64 | |||
|- | |||
|Human beings are so complex that they required a <br> powerful force or intelligent being to help create them. | |||
|10 | |||
|- | |||
|Not sure/Decline to answer | |||
|4 | |||
|} | |||
Repeatedly, creationists and intelligent design advocates have lost suits in US courts.<ref>''Teaching About Evolution and the Nature of Science (1998)'' , National Academy of Sciences, National Academy Press, Washington DC, 1998.</ref> Here is a list of important court cases in which creationists have suffered setbacks: | |||
Unfortunately, the answering options are not mutually exclusive, yet the respondent must choose only one option, not a collection of options. Since most Americans probably hold a combination of the first and second options, which correspond to ], this creates a difficulty. People who support creationism might want to choose a combination of the second and third options. It is also conceivable that some respondents would want to choose a combination of 3 of the 4 options, or even all 4 options. Therefore, it is very difficult to interpret the poll results. | |||
*1968 '']'', ]<ref>Epperson v. Arkansas, 393 U.S. 97. (1968)</ref> | |||
From these results, it appears to be difficult to ascertain the validity or usefulness of estimated public levels of belief. | |||
*1981 '']'', ]<ref>Segraves v. California, No. 278978 Sacramento Superior Court (1981)</ref> | |||
*1982 '']'', U.S. ]<ref>McLean v. Arkansas Board of Education, 529 F. Supp. 1255, 50 (1982) U.S. Law Week 2412</ref> | |||
*1987 '']'', ]<ref>Edwards v. Aguillard, 482, U.S. 578, 55 (1987) U.S. Law Week 4860, S. CT. 2573, 96 L. Ed. 2d510</ref> | |||
*1990 '']'', Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals<ref>Webster v. New Lenox School District #122, 917 F.2d 1004 (7th. Cir., 1990)</ref> | |||
*1994 '']'', Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals<ref>, 37 F.3d 517 (9th Cir., 1994)</ref> | |||
*1997 '']'', United States District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana<ref>, No. 94-3577 (E.D. La. Aug. 8, 1997)</ref> | |||
*2000 '']'', District Court for the Third Judicial District of the State of Minnesota<ref>Order Granting Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment and Memorandum, Court File Nr. CX-99-793, District Court for the Third Judicial District of the State of Minnesota </ref> | |||
*2005 '']'', US Federal Court<ref>Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District No. 04-2688 (M.D. Pa. Dec. 20, 2005)</ref> | |||
*2006 '']'' US District Court Eastern District of California | |||
==Trends== | == Trends == | ||
The level of assent that evolution garners has changed with time. The trends in acceptance of evolution can be estimated. | The level of assent that evolution garners has changed with time. The trends in acceptance of evolution can be estimated. | ||
===Early impact of Darwin's theory=== | ===Early impact of Darwin's theory=== | ||
The level of support for evolution in different communities has varied with time. ] theory had convinced almost every naturalist within 20 years of its publication in 1858, and was making serious inroads with the public and the more liberal clergy. It had reached such extremes, that by 1880, one | The level of support for evolution in different communities has varied with time and social context.<ref>{{cite thesis |last=Macpherson |first=Ryan |date=2003 |title=The Vestiges of Creation in America's Pre-Darwinian Evolution Debates: Interpreting Theology and the Natural Sciences in Three Academic Communities |type=PhD |publisher=University of Notre Dame|url=https://elibrary.ru/item.asp?id=5441001 |access-date=17 August 2019}}, found that different answers about the nature of salvation correlated with attitudes toward the pre-Darwinian '']''</ref> ] theory had convinced almost every naturalist within 20 years of its publication in 1858, and was making serious inroads with the public and the more liberal clergy. It had reached such extremes, that by 1880, one | ||
American religious weekly publication estimated that " |
American religious weekly publication estimated that "perhaps a quarter, perhaps a half of the educated ministers in our leading Evangelical denominations" thought "that the story of the creation and fall of man, told in Genesis, is no more the record of actual occurrences than is the parable of the Prodigal Son."<ref name=Numbers> {{ISBN|0-674-02339-0}}</ref> | ||
By the late |
By the late 19th century, many of the most conservative Christians accepted an ancient Earth, and life on Earth before Eden. ] Creationists were more akin to people who subscribe to ] today. Even fervent anti-evolutionist ] prosecutor ] interpreted the "days" of ] as ages of the Earth, and acknowledged that biochemical evolution took place, drawing the line only at the story of ]'s creation. Prominent pre-World War II creationist ] allowed an ] by slipping millions of years into putative gaps in the Genesis account, and claimed that the ] was only a local phenomenon.<ref name=Numbers/> | ||
In the decades of the |
In the decades of the 20th century, ] and a tiny group of ] followers were among the very few believers in a ] and a worldwide flood, which Price championed in his "new catastrophism" theories. It was not until the publication of ], and ]’s book ''Genesis Flood'' in 1961 that Price's idea was revived. In the last few decades, many creationists have adopted Price's beliefs, becoming progressively more strict ].<ref name=Numbers/>{{Dead link|date=December 2015}} | ||
===Recent public beliefs=== | ===Recent public beliefs=== | ||
{{Globalize|article|USA|2name=the United States|date=December 2010}} | |||
In a 1991 Gallup poll, 47% of the US population, and 25% of college graduates agreed with the statement, "''God created man pretty much in his present | |||
form at one time within the last 10,000 years. |
In a 1991 Gallup poll, 47% of the US population, and 25% of college graduates agreed with the statement, "God created man pretty much in his present form at one time within the last 10,000 years." | ||
Fourteen years later, in 2005, Gallup found that 53% of Americans expressed the belief that "God created human beings in their present form exactly the way the Bible describes it." About 2/3 (65.5%) of those surveyed thought that creationism was definitely or probably true. In 2005 a ] poll discovered that 80 percent of the American public thought that "God created the universe." and the Pew Research Center reported that "nearly two-thirds of Americans say that creationism should be taught alongside evolution in public schools." ] commented on that with "Most surprising of all was the discovery that large numbers of high-school biology teachers — from 30% in Illinois and 38% in Ohio to a whopping 69% in Kentucky — supported the teaching of creationism."<ref name=Numbers/> | |||
Fourteen years | |||
later, in 2005, Gallup found that 53 percent of Americans expressed the belief that "''God created human beings in their present form exactly the way the Bible describes it.''" About 2/3 (65.5%) of those surveyed thought that creationism was definitely or probably true. In 2005 a ] poll discovered that 80 percent of the American public thought that "''God created the universe,''" and the Pew Research Center reported that "''nearly two-thirds of Americans say that creationism should be taught alongside evolution in public schools.''" Even more surprising was the level of support among high school biology teachers, from 30% in Illinois to 69% in Kentucky.<ref name=Numbers/> | |||
The ] reports that from 1985 to 2005, the number of Americans unsure about evolution increased from 7% to 21%, while the number rejecting evolution declined from 48% to 39%.<ref name=Hecht></ref |
The ] reports that from 1985 to 2005, the number of Americans unsure about evolution increased from 7% to 21%, while the number rejecting evolution declined from 48% to 39%.<ref name=ScienceSurvey/><ref name=Hecht></ref> Jon Miller of Michigan State University has found in his polls that the number of Americans who accept evolution has declined from 45% to 40% from 1985 to 2005.<ref>Science, vol 313, p 765</ref> | ||
In light of these somewhat contradictory results, it is difficult to know for sure what is happening to public opinion on evolution in the US. It does not appear that either side is making unequivocal progress. It does appear that uncertainty about the issue is increasing, however. | In light of these somewhat contradictory results, it is difficult to know for sure what is happening to public opinion on evolution in the US. It does not appear that either side is making unequivocal progress. It does appear that uncertainty about the issue is increasing, however. | ||
A Pew Research Center poll in 2018 found that the way the question is asked changes the results, for instance among U.S. adults the number of people who believe humans have evolved over time varies from 68% to 81% based on the question format.<ref>{{Cite web|last=Funk|first=Cary|title=How highly religious Americans view evolution depends on how they're asked about it|url=https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2019/02/06/how-highly-religious-americans-view-evolution-depends-on-how-theyre-asked-about-it/|access-date=2022-02-18|website=Pew Research Center|date=6 February 2019 |language=en-US}}</ref> | |||
Anecdotal evidence is that creationism is becoming more of an issue in the UK as well. One report in 2006 was that UK students are increasingly arriving ill-prepared to participate in medical studies or other advanced education.<ref>, Duncan Campbell, The Guardian, Tuesday February 21, 2006.</ref> | |||
Anecdotal evidence suggests that creationism is gaining ground in the UK as well. One report in 2006 stated that UK students are increasingly arriving ill-prepared to participate in medical studies or other advanced education.<ref>, Duncan Campbell, The Guardian, Tuesday February 21, 2006.</ref> | |||
===Recent scientific trends=== | ===Recent scientific trends=== | ||
The level of support for ] among relevant scientists is minimal. In 2007 the ] reported that about 600 scientists signed their '']'' list, up from 100 in 2001.<ref>{{cite web | url = http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/index.php?command=view&id=2732 | title = Ranks of Scientists Doubting Darwin's Theory on the Rise | author = Staff, ] | publisher = ] |date=2007-03-08 | access-date = 2007-10-30 }}</ref> The actual statement of the Scientific Dissent from Darwinism is a relatively mild one that expresses skepticism about the absoluteness of 'Darwinism' (and is in line with the ] required of ]) to explain all features of life, and does not in any way represent an absolute denial or rejection of evolution.<ref name=Evans>{{cite web | url = http://ncse.com/creationism/general/doubting-darwinism-creative-license | title = Doubting Darwinism through Creative License | last = Evans | first = Skip | author-link = Skip Evans | publisher = ] |date=2001-11-29 | access-date = 2007-12-13}}</ref> By contrast, a tongue-in-cheek response known as ], a list restricted to scientists with the name Steve (or variations of it) who agree that evolution is "a vital, well-supported, unifying principle of the biological sciences," has 1,491 signatories {{As of|2023|9|18|alt=as of September 18, 2023}}.<ref name=home>{{cite web |url=http://ncse.com/taking-action/project-steve |title=Project Steve |publisher=] |access-date=November 24, 2015 |date=October 17, 2008}}</ref> People with these names make up approximately 1% of the total U.S. population. | |||
The level of support for ] among relevant scientists is minimal. Only 700 out of 480,000 U.S. earth and life scientists gave credence to creationism in 1987,<ref name="Newsweek_1987_Martz_McDaniel"/> representing about 0.158% of relevant scientists. In 2007 the ] reported that it had secured the endorsements of about 600 scientists after several years' effort. | |||
The United States ] statistics on US yearly science graduates demonstrate that from 1987 to 2001, the number of biological science graduates increased by 59% while the number of geological science graduates decreased by 20.5%. However, the number of geology graduates in 2001 was only 5.4% of the number of graduates in the biological sciences, while it was 10.7% of the number of biological science graduates in 1987.<ref> |
The United States ] statistics on US yearly science graduates demonstrate that from 1987 to 2001, the number of biological science graduates increased by 59% while the number of geological science graduates decreased by 20.5%. However, the number of geology graduates in 2001 was only 5.4% of the number of graduates in the biological sciences, while it was 10.7% of the number of biological science graduates in 1987.<ref>{{cite web | url = https://www.nsf.gov/statistics/nsf04311/pdf/tab42.pdf | title = NSF statistics on science graduates 1966–2001 | publisher = National Science Foundation | url-status = dead | archive-url = https://web.archive.org/web/20061109070632/https://www.nsf.gov/statistics/nsf04311/pdf/tab42.pdf | archive-date = 2006-11-09 }}</ref> The Science Resources Statistics Division of the National Science Foundation estimated that in 1999, there were 955,300 biological scientists in the US (about 1/3 of who hold graduate degrees). There were also 152,800 earth scientists in the US as well.<ref>{{cite web | url = http://srsstats.sbe.nsf.gov/preformatted-tables/1999/tables/TableC1.pdf | title = 1999 SESTAT (Scientists and Engineers Statistical Data) Table C-1 | publisher = National Science Foundation/Science Resources Statistics Division | url-status = dead | archive-url = https://web.archive.org/web/20060929135233/http://srsstats.sbe.nsf.gov/preformatted-tables/1999/tables/TableC1.pdf | archive-date = 2006-09-29 }}</ref> | ||
A large fraction of the Darwin Dissenters have specialties unrelated to research on evolution; of the dissenters, three-quarters are not biologists.<ref name=Chang>{{cite news | url = https://www.nytimes.com/2006/02/21/science/sciencespecial2/21peti.html?_r=1&oref=slogin | title = Few Biologists But Many Evangelicals Sign Anti-Evolution Petition | first = Kenneth | last = Chang | work = The ] |date=2006-03-21 | format = php }}; text available without registering at {{cite web | url = http://www.ntskeptics.org/news/news2006-02-25.htm | title = Skeptical News }}</ref> As of 2006, the dissenter list was expanded to include non-US scientists.<ref>{{cite web | url = http://www.evolutionnews.org/2006/06/dissent_from_darwinism_goes_gl.html | last = Crowther | first = Robert | publisher = ] | title = Dissent From Darwinism 'Goes Global' as Over 600 Scientists Around the World Express Their Doubts About Darwinian Evolution | access-date = 2007-10-30 |date=2006-06-21 }}</ref> | |||
Therefore, the increase in biological science graduates, in addition to the net immigration of scientists from foreign countries to the US, would be expected to increase the total number of biological scientists in the US. Again NSF statistics demonstrate that this is correct. The National Science Foundation/Science Resources Statistics Division estimates that in 1999, there were 955,300 biological scientists in the US (about 1/3 of who hold graduate degrees). There were also 152,800 earth scientists in the US as well.<ref></ref> If the trends in the NSF statistics continued until 2007, there were even more biological scientists in the US in 2007. | |||
Some researchers are attempting to understand the factors that affect people's acceptance of evolution. Studies have yielded inconsistent results, explains associate professor of education at Ohio State University, David Haury. He recently performed a study that found people are likely to reject evolution if they have feelings of uncertainty, regardless of how well they understand evolutionary theory. Haury believes that teachers need to show students that their intuitive feelings may be misleading (for example, using the ]), and thus to exercise caution when relying on them as they judge the rational merits of ideas.<ref>{{cite journal|doi=10.1002/tea.20449 | volume=49 | issue=1 | title=Feeling of certainty: Uncovering a missing link between knowledge and acceptance of evolution | year=2011 | journal=Journal of Research in Science Teaching | pages=95–121 | last1 = Ha | first1 = Minsu| bibcode=2012JRScT..49...95H | doi-access=free }}</ref><ref></ref> | |||
Therefore, the 600 ] represent about 0.054% of the roughly 1,108,100 biological and geological scientists that existed in the US in 1999. | |||
==See also== | |||
However, these figures might be an overestimate: | |||
*] | |||
*] | |||
== Footnotes == | |||
* A large fraction of the Darwin Dissenters are mathematicians, physicists, engineers and others who never deal with evolution, or even biology, professionally. Ken Chang of the ] found that in February of 2006, about 75.1% of the Darwin Dissenters were not biologists.<ref name=Chang>, Kenneth Chang. The New York Times, February 21 2006 (text available without registering at )</ref> Therefore, the roughly 150 biologist Darwin Dissenters represent about 0.0157% of the US biologists that existed in 1999. | |||
{{Reflist}} | |||
* It is likely that there were more biologists and earth scientists in the US in 2007 than there were in 1999. The number of people graduating in biology and the net increase in biologists through immigration have probably continued to increase, so that the figure of 955,000 is likely an underestimate of the number of US biologists in 2007. | |||
* The list of Darwin Dissenters includes many foreign scientists, which also results in an overestimate of the percentage of scientists that do not accept evolution. | |||
It should also be noted that the statement signed by the Darwin Dissenters merely expresses skepticism about evolution, and is not a ringing endorsement of supernatural intervention in the natural world. | |||
Although these figures are only estimates, they do seem to indicate that while public support for creationism and intelligent design is increasing, scientific support for it appears to be steadily decreasing. | |||
==Validity of polling, surveys, resolutions, etc.== | |||
In this ], both sides have put substantial and increasing amounts of effort to produce long lists of supporters, or signed statements or collections of resolutions. These fall in the category of "'']''", or arguing that the strength of one's position is correct because of the force of numbers supporting it. Of course, as creationist | |||
Bert Thompson asserts, "''truth never is determined by popular opinion or majority vote''".<ref name=DayScientistsVoted/> | |||
This is definitely true in science, and the only thing in science that matters is whether the data available match the predictions of a given scientific theory. If they do, then the theory gains support among the scientific community. In this case, the polls do confirm that ] is the dominantly accepted theory attempting to explain the diversity of the earth's life forms among scientists. | |||
There is never absolute support of all scientists for any theory, however. There are always alternative theories that exist and garner support. It is also important to remember, as Guy Woods writes, "''It is dangerous to follow the multitude because the majority is almost always on the wrong side in this world.''"<ref>''And Be Not Conformed To This World...,'', Guy N. Woods, Gospel Advocate, 124:2,23, January 7, 1982.</ref> | |||
== Citations == | |||
{{reflist|2}} | |||
== References == | == References == | ||
*{{Cite book |last=ʻAbdu'l-Bahá |author-link=ʻAbdu'l-Bahá |year=1908 |publication-date=1990 |title=] |publisher=Baháʼí Publishing Trust |place=Wilmette, Illinois, USA }} | |||
*{{Harvard reference | |||
*{{Cite book |last=ʻAbdu'l-Bahá |year=1912 |publication-date=1995 |title=Paris Talks |publisher=Baháʼí Distribution Service |place=London |url=http://reference.bahai.org/en/t/ab/PT/ |isbn=1-870989-57-0 }} | |||
| Surname1 = Martz | |||
*{{Cite book |last=Effendi |first=Abbas |author-link=ʻAbdu'l-Bahá |year=1912 |title=The Promulgation of Universal Peace |publication-date=1987 |publisher=US Baháʼí Publishing Trust |url=http://www.reference.bahai.org/en/t/ab/PUP/pup-117.html#gr9 |isbn=0-87743-172-8 }} | |||
| Given1 = Larry | |||
*{{Cite journal | |||
| Surname2 = McDaniel | |||
| |
| last1 = Matsumura | ||
| |
| first1 = Molleen | ||
| date = 1998 | |||
| Date = ] | |||
| title = What Do Christians Really Believe About Evolution? | |||
| Title = Keeping God out of the Classroom (Washington and bureau reports) | |||
| journal = Reports of the National Center About Evolution | |||
| Journal = Newsweek | |||
| |
| volume = 18 | ||
| |
| pages = 8–9 | ||
| url = http://ncse.com/rncse/18/2/what-do-christians-really-believe-evolution | |||
| Number = 26 | |||
| issue = 2 | |||
| Publisher = Newsweek Inc. | |||
}} Retrieved on 2007-02-07 | |||
| ID = ISSN 0028-9604 | |||
*{{Cite journal | |||
}} | |||
| last1 = National Center for Science Education (NCSE) | |||
*{{Harvard reference | |||
| author-link = National Center for Science Education | |||
| Surname = Matsumura | |||
| |
| date = 2002 | ||
| title = Statements from Religious Organizations | |||
| Authorlink = Molleen Matsumura | |||
| journal = NCSE Resource | |||
| Publisher = National Center for Science Education Inc. | |||
| url = http://ncse.com/media/voices/religion | |||
| Year = 1998 | |||
| ref = {{SfnRef|NCSE|2002}} | |||
| Title = What Do Christians Really Believe About Evolution? | |||
}} Retrieved on 2007-02-08 | |||
| Journal = Reports of the National Center About Evolution | |||
| Volume = 18 | |||
| Number = 2 | |||
| Pages = 8-9 | |||
| URL = http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikisource/en/a/a0/Masumura_1998.pdf | |||
}} Retrieved on ] | |||
*{{Harvard reference | |||
| Surname = NCSE | |||
| Given = National Center for Science Education Inc. | |||
| Authorlink = National Center for Science Education | |||
| Publisher = National Center for Science Education Inc. | |||
| Year = 2002 | |||
| Date = ] | |||
| Title = Statements from Religious Organizations | |||
| Journal = NCSE Resource | |||
| URL = http://www.ncseweb.org/resources/articles/5025_statements_from_religious_orga_12_19_2002.asp | |||
}} Retrieved on ] | |||
==See also== | |||
*] | |||
*] | |||
*] | |||
{{Evolution}} | {{Evolution}} | ||
{{portal bar|Biology|Evolution}} | |||
{{DEFAULTSORT:Level Of Support For Evolution}} | |||
] | ] | ||
] | ] | ||
] | ] | ||
] | |||
] |
Latest revision as of 19:36, 31 October 2024
Variation in support for the theory of evolution For the scientific evidence supporting evolution, see Evidence of common descent.Part of a series on |
Evolutionary biology |
---|
Darwin's finches by John Gould |
Processes and outcomes |
Natural history |
History of evolutionary theory |
Fields and applications
|
Social implications |
The level of support for evolution among scientists, the public, and other groups is a topic that frequently arises in the creation–evolution controversy, and touches on educational, religious, philosophical, scientific, and political issues. The subject is especially contentious in countries where significant levels of non-acceptance of evolution by the general population exists, but evolution is taught at public schools and universities.
As of 2014, nearly all (around 98%) of the scientific community accepts evolution as the dominant scientific theory of biological diversity with, as of 2009, some 87% accepting that evolution occurs due to natural processes, such as natural selection. Scientific associations have strongly rebutted and refuted the challenges to evolution proposed by intelligent design proponents.
There are many religious groups and denominations spread across several countries who reject the theory of evolution because it is in conflict with their central belief of creationism. For example, countries having such groups include the United States, South Africa, the Muslim world, South Korea, Singapore, the Philippines, and Brazil, with smaller followings in the United Kingdom, the Republic of Ireland, Japan, Italy, Germany, Israel, Australia, New Zealand, and Canada.
Several publications discuss the subject of acceptance, including a document produced by the United States National Academy of Sciences.
Scientific
The vast majority of the scientific community and academia supports evolutionary theory as the only explanation that can fully account for observations in the fields of biology, paleontology, molecular biology, genetics, anthropology, and others. A 1991 Gallup poll found that about 5% of American scientists (including those with training outside biology) identified themselves as creationists.
Additionally, the scientific community considers intelligent design, a neo-creationist offshoot, to be unscientific, pseudoscience, or junk science. The U.S. National Academy of Sciences has stated that intelligent design "and other claims of supernatural intervention in the origin of life" are not science because they cannot be tested by experiment, do not generate any predictions, and propose no new hypotheses of their own. In September 2005, 38 Nobel laureates issued a statement saying "Intelligent design is fundamentally unscientific; it cannot be tested as scientific theory because its central conclusion is based on belief in the intervention of a supernatural agent." In October 2005, a coalition representing more than 70,000 Australian scientists and science teachers issued a statement saying "intelligent design is not science" and calling on "all schools not to teach Intelligent Design (ID) as science, because it fails to qualify on every count as a scientific theory".
In 1986, an amicus curiae brief, signed by 72 US Nobel Prize winners, 17 state academies of science and 7 other scientific societies, asked the US Supreme Court in Edwards v. Aguillard, to reject a Louisiana state law requiring that where evolutionary science was taught in public schools, creation science must also be taught. The brief also stated that the term "creation science" as used by the law embodied religious dogma, and that "teaching religious ideas mislabeled as science is detrimental to scientific education". This was the largest collection of Nobel Prize winners to sign a petition up to that point. According to anthropologists Almquist and Cronin, the brief is the "clearest statement by scientists in support of evolution yet produced."
There are many scientific and scholarly organizations from around the world that have issued statements in support of the theory of evolution. The American Association for the Advancement of Science, the world's largest general scientific society with more than 130,000 members and over 262 affiliated societies and academies of science including over 10 million individuals, has made several statements and issued several press releases in support of evolution. The prestigious United States National Academy of Sciences, which provides science advice to the nation, has published several books supporting evolution and criticising creationism and intelligent design.
There is a notable difference between the opinion of scientists and that of the general public in the United States. A 2009 poll by Pew Research Center found that "Nearly all scientists (97%) say humans and other living things have evolved over time – 87% say evolution is due to natural processes, such as natural selection. The dominant position among scientists – that living things have evolved due to natural processes – is shared by only about a third (32%) of the public." Whereas a 2014 Pew poll found "65% of adults say that humans and other living things have evolved".
Votes, resolutions, and statements of scientists before 1985
One of the earliest resolutions in support of evolution was issued by the American Association for the Advancement of Science in 1922, and readopted in 1929.
Another early effort to express support for evolution by scientists was organized by Nobel Prize–winning American biologist Hermann J. Muller in 1966. Muller circulated a petition entitled "Is Biological Evolution a Principle of Nature that has been well established by Science?" in May 1966:
There are no hypotheses, alternative to the principle of evolution with its "tree of life," that any competent biologist of today takes seriously. Moreover, the principle is so important for an understanding of the world we live in and of ourselves that the public in general, including students taking biology in high school, should be made aware of it, and of the fact that it is firmly established, even as the rotundity of the earth is firmly established.
This manifesto was signed by 177 of the leading American biologists, including George G. Simpson of Harvard University, Nobel Prize Winner Peter Agre of Duke University, Carl Sagan of Cornell, John Tyler Bonner of Princeton, Nobel Prize Winner George Beadle, President of the University of Chicago, and Donald F. Kennedy of Stanford University, formerly head of the United States Food and Drug Administration.
This was followed by the passing of a resolution by the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) in the fall of 1972 that stated, in part, "the theory of creation ... is neither scientifically grounded nor capable of performing the rules required of science theories". The United States National Academy of Sciences also passed a similar resolution in the fall of 1972. A statement on evolution called "A Statement Affirming Evolution as a Principle of Science." was signed by Nobel Prize Winner Linus Pauling, Isaac Asimov, George G. Simpson, Caltech Biology Professor Norman H. Horowitz, Ernst Mayr, and others, and published in 1977. The governing board of the American Geological Institute issued a statement supporting resolution in November 1981. Shortly thereafter, the AAAS passed another resolution supporting evolution and disparaging efforts to teach creationism in science classes.
To date, there are no scientifically peer-reviewed research articles that disclaim evolution listed in the scientific and medical journal search engine PubMed.
Project Steve
Main article: Project SteveThe Discovery Institute announced that over 700 scientists had expressed support for intelligent design as of February 8, 2007. This prompted the National Center for Science Education to produce a "light-hearted" petition called "Project Steve" in support of evolution. Only scientists named "Steve" or some variation (such as Stephen, Stephanie, and Stefan) are eligible to sign the petition. It is intended to be a "tongue-in-cheek parody" of the lists of alleged "scientists" supposedly supporting creationist principles that creationist organizations produce. The petition demonstrates that there are more scientists who accept evolution with a name like "Steve" alone (over 1370) than there are in total who support intelligent design. This is, again, why the percentage of scientists who support evolution has been estimated by Brian Alters to be about 99.9 percent.
Religious
The examples and perspective in this article may not represent a worldwide view of the subject. You may improve this article, discuss the issue on the talk page, or create a new article, as appropriate. (February 2019) (Learn how and when to remove this message) |
Religious Differences on the Question of Evolution (United States) Percentage who agree that evolution is the best explanation for the origin of human life on earth | ||||
---|---|---|---|---|
Buddhist | 81% | |||
Hindu | 80% | |||
Jewish | 77% | |||
Unaffiliated | 72% | |||
Catholic | 58% | |||
Orthodox | 54% | |||
Mainline Protestant | 51% | |||
Muslim | 45% | |||
Hist. Black Protest. | 38% | |||
Evang. Protestant | 24% | |||
Mormon | 22% | |||
Jehovah's Witnesses | 8% | |||
Total U.S. population percentage:48% Source: Pew Forum |
Creationists have claimed that they represent the interests of true Christians, and evolution is associated only with atheism.
However, not all religious organizations find support for evolution incompatible with their religious faith. For example, 12 of the plaintiffs opposing the teaching of creation science in the influential McLean v. Arkansas court case were clergy representing Methodist, Episcopal, African Methodist Episcopal, Catholic, Southern Baptist, Reform Jewish, and Presbyterian groups. There are several religious organizations that have issued statements advocating the teaching of evolution in public schools. In addition, the Archbishop of Canterbury, Dr. Rowan Williams, issued statements in support of evolution in 2006. The Clergy Letter Project is a signed statement by 12,808 (as of 28 May 2012) American Christian clergy of different denominations rejecting creationism organized in 2004. Molleen Matsumura of the National Center for Science Education found, of Americans in the twelve largest Christian denominations, at least 77% belong to churches that support evolution education (and that at one point, this figure was as high as 89.6%). These religious groups include the Catholic Church, as well as various denominations of Protestantism, including the United Methodist Church, National Baptist Convention, USA, Evangelical Lutheran Church in America, Presbyterian Church (USA), National Baptist Convention of America, African Methodist Episcopal Church, the Episcopal Church, and others. A figure closer to about 71% is presented by the analysis of Walter B. Murfin and David F. Beck.
Michael Shermer argued in Scientific American in October 2006 that evolution supports concepts like family values, avoiding lies, fidelity, moral codes and the rule of law. Shermer also suggests that evolution gives more support to the notion of an omnipotent creator, rather than a tinkerer with limitations based on a human model.
Ahmadiyya
Main article: Ahmadiyya views of evolutionThe Ahmadiyya Movement universally accepts evolution and actively promotes it. Mirza Tahir Ahmad, Fourth Caliph of the Ahmadiyya Muslim Community has stated in his magnum opus Revelation, Rationality, Knowledge & Truth that evolution did occur but only through God being the One who brings it about. It does not occur itself, according to the Ahmadiyya Muslim Community. The Ahmadis do not believe Adam was the first human on Earth, but merely the first prophet to receive a revelation of God.
Baha'i Faith
Main article: Bahá'í Faith and science § EvolutionThis section relies excessively on references to primary sources. Please improve this section by adding secondary or tertiary sources. Find sources: "Level of support for evolution" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · JSTOR (February 2020) (Learn how and when to remove this message) |
A fundamental part of `Abdul-Bahá's teachings on evolution is the belief that all life came from the same origin: "the origin of all material life is one..." He states that from this sole origin, the complete diversity of life was generated: "Consider the world of created beings, how varied and diverse they are in species, yet with one sole origin" He explains that a slow, gradual process led to the development of complex entities:
he growth and development of all beings is gradual; this is the universal divine organization and the natural system. The seed does not at once become a tree; the embryo does not at once become a man; the mineral does not suddenly become a stone. No, they grow and develop gradually and attain the limit of perfection
Catholic Church
The 1950 encyclical Humani generis advocated scepticism towards evolution without explicitly rejecting it; this was substantially amended by Pope John-Paul II in 1996 in an address to the Pontifical Academy of Sciences in which he said, "Today, almost half a century after publication of the encyclical, new knowledge has led to the recognition of the theory of evolution as more than a hypothesis." Between 2000 and 2002 the International Theological Commission found that "Converging evidence from many studies in the physical and biological sciences furnishes mounting support for some theory of evolution to account for the development and diversification of life on earth, while controversy continues over the pace and mechanisms of evolution." This statement was published by the Vatican in July 2004 by the authority of Cardinal Ratzinger (who became Pope Benedict XVI) who was the president of the Commission at the time.
The Magisterium has not made an authoritative statement on intelligent design, and has permitted arguments on both sides of the issue. In 2005, Cardinal Christoph Schönborn of Vienna appeared to endorse intelligent design when he denounced philosophically materialist interpretations of evolution. In an op-ed in the New York Times he said "Evolution in the sense of common ancestry might be true, but evolution in the neo-Darwinian sense - an unguided, unplanned process of random variation and natural selection - is not."
In the January 16–17 2006 edition of the official Vatican newspaper L'Osservatore Romano, University of Bologna evolutionary biology Professor Fiorenzo Facchini wrote an article agreeing with the judge's ruling in Kitzmiller v. Dover and stating that intelligent design was unscientific. Jesuit Father George Coyne, former director of the Vatican Observatory, has also denounced intelligent design.
Sikhism
The Sikh scripture explicitly states that the Universe and its processes are created by, and subject to, the laws of Nature. Furthermore, the name that is used by Sikhs for God, Waheguru, is literally translated as "the Wonderful Teacher", implying that these laws are, in principle at least, at least partially discernible by human inquiry. One of the hymns that observant Sikhs recite daily describes the orbit of the Earth as being caused by those same laws (and not some mythological cause). Thus, the scientific world-view, which includes the Darwinian theory of evolution, is compatible with traditional Sikh belief.
Hinduism
Main article: Hindu views on evolutionHindus believe in the concept of evolution of life on Earth. The concepts of Dashavatara—different incarnations of God starting from simple organisms and progressively becoming complex beings—and Day and Night of Brahma are generally cited as instances of Hindu acceptance of evolution.
US religious denominations
In the United States, many Protestant denominations promote creationism, preach against evolution, and sponsor lectures and debates on the subject. Denominations that explicitly advocate creationism instead of evolution or "Darwinism" include the Assemblies of God, the Free Methodist Church, Lutheran Church–Missouri Synod, Pentecostal Churches, Seventh-day Adventist Churches, Wisconsin Evangelical Lutheran Synod, Christian Reformed Church, Southern Baptist Convention, the Pentecostal Oneness churches, and the Evangelical Lutheran Synod. Jehovah's Witnesses produce gap creationism and day-age creationism literature to refute evolution but reject the "creationist" label, which they consider to apply only to Young Earth creationism.
Medicine and industry
A common complaint of creationists is that evolution is of no value, has never been used for anything, and will never be of any use. According to many creationists, nothing would be lost by getting rid of evolution, and science and industry might even benefit.
In fact, evolution is being put to practical use in industry and widely used on a daily basis by researchers in medicine, biochemistry, molecular biology, and genetics to both formulate hypotheses about biological systems for the purposes of experimental design, as well as to rationalise observed data and prepare applications. As of May 2019 there are 554,965 scientific papers in PubMed that mention 'evolution'. Pharmaceutical companies utilize biological evolution in their development of new products, and also use these medicines to combat evolving bacteria and viruses.
Because of the perceived value of evolution in applications, there have been some expressions of support for evolution on the part of corporations. In Kansas, there has been some widespread concern in the corporate and academic communities that a move to weaken the teaching of evolution in schools will hurt the state's ability to recruit the best talent, particularly in the biotech industry. Paul Hanle of the Biotechnology Institute warned that the United States risks falling behind in the biotechnology race with other nations if it does not do a better job of teaching evolution.
James McCarter of Divergence Incorporated stated that the work of 2001 Nobel Prize winner Leland Hartwell relied heavily on the use of evolutionary knowledge and predictions, both of which have significant implications for the treatment of cancers. Furthermore, McCarter concluded that 47 of the last 50 Nobel Prizes in medicine or physiology depended on an understanding of evolutionary theory (according to McCarter's unspecified personal criteria).
Public support
There does not appear to be significant correlation between believing in evolution and understanding evolutionary science. In some countries, creationist beliefs (or a lack of support for evolutionary theory) are relatively widespread, even garnering a majority of public opinion. A study published in Science compared attitudes about evolution in the United States, 32 European countries, and Japan. The only country where acceptance of evolution was lower than in the United States was Turkey (25%). Public acceptance of evolution was most widespread (at over 80% of the population) in Iceland, Denmark and Sweden.
Afghanistan
According to the Pew Research Center, Afghanistan has the lowest acceptance of evolution in the Muslim countries. Only 26% of people in Afghanistan accept evolution. 62% deny human evolution and believe that humans have always existed in their present form.
Argentina
According to a 2014 poll produced by the Pew Research Center, 71% of people in Argentina believe "humans and other living things evolved over time" while 23% believe they have "always existed in the present form."
Armenia
According to the Pew Research Center, 56 percent of Armenians deny human evolution and claim that humans have always existed in their present and only 34 percent of Armenians accept human evolution.
Australia
A 2009 Nielsen poll showed that 23% of Australians believe "the biblical account of human origins," 42% believe in a "wholly scientific" explanation for the origins of life, while 32% believe in an evolutionary process "guided by God".
A 2013 survey conducted by Auspoll and the Australian Academy of Science found that 80% of Australians believe in evolution (70% believe it is currently occurring, 10% believe in evolution but do not think it is currently occurring), 12% were not sure and 9% stated they do not believe in evolution.
Belarus
According to the Pew Research Center, 63 percent of respondents in Belarus accept the theory of evolution while 23 percent of them deny evolution and claim that "humans have always existed in their present form."
Bolivia
According to a 2014 poll by the Pew Research Center, 44% of people in Bolivia believe "humans and other living things evolved over time" while 39% believe they have "always existed in the present form."
Brazil
In a 2010 poll, 59% of respondents said they believe in theistic evolution, or evolution guided by God. A further 8% believe in evolution without divine intervention, while 25% were creationists. Support for creationism was stronger among the poor and the least educated. According to a 2014 poll produced by the Pew Research Center, 66% of Brazilians agree that humans evolved over time and 29% think they have always existed in the present form.
Canada
In a 2019 nationwide poll, 61% of Canadians believe that humans evolved from less advanced life forms over millions of years, while 23% believe that God created human beings in their present form within the last 10,000 years.
Chile
According to a 2014 poll by the Pew Research Center, 69% of people in Chile believe "humans and other living things evolved over time" while 26% believe they have "always existed in the present form."
Colombia
According to a 2014 poll by the Pew Research Center, 59% of people in Colombia believe "humans and other living things evolved over time" while 35% believe they have "always existed in the present form."
Costa Rica
According to a 2014 poll by the Pew Research Center, 56% of people in Costa Rica believe "humans and other living things evolved over time" while 38% believe they have "always existed in the present form."
Czech Republic
According to the Pew Research Center, the Czech Republic has the highest acceptance of evolution in Eastern Europe. 83 percent people in the Czech Republic believe that humans evolved over time.
Dominican Republic
According to a 2014 poll by the Pew Research Center, 41% of people in Dominican Republic believe "humans and other living things evolved over time" while 56% believe they have "always existed in the present form."
Ecuador
According to a 2014 poll by the Pew Research Center, 50% of people in Ecuador believe "humans and other living things evolved over time" while 44% believe they have "always existed in the present form."
El Salvador
According to a 2014 poll by the Pew Research Center, 46% of people in El Salvador believe "humans and other living things evolved over time" while 45% believe they have "always existed in the present form."
Estonia
According to the Pew Research Center, 74% of Estonians accept the theory of evolution while 21% deny it and claim that "humans have always existed in their present form."
Georgia
According to the Pew Research Center, 58 percent of Georgians accept the theory of evolution while 34 percent of Georgians deny the theory of evolution.
Guatemala
According to a 2014 poll by the Pew Research Center, 55% of people in Guatemala believe "humans and other living things evolved over time" while 38% believe they have "always existed in the present form."
Honduras
According to a 2014 poll by the Pew Research Center, 49% of people in Honduras believe "humans and other living things evolved over time" while 45% believe they have "always existed in the present form."
Hungary
According to the Pew Research Center, 69 percent of Hungarians accept the theory of evolution and 21 percent of Hungarians deny human evolution.
Kazakhstan
According to the Pew Research Center, Kazakhstan has the highest acceptance of evolution in the Muslim countries. 79% of people in Kazakhstan accept the theory of evolution.
India
According to a 2009 survey conducted by the British Council, 77% of people in India agree that enough scientific evidence exists to support evolution. Also, 85% of God believing Indians who know about evolution agree that life on earth evolved over time as a result of natural selection.
In the same 2009 survey carried among 10 major nations, the highest proportion that agreed that evolutionary theories alone should be taught in schools was in India, at 49%.
In a survey conducted across 12 states in India, public acceptance of evolution stood at 68.5%.
In 2023, NCERT, under the rationalization scheme, removed Darwin's theory of evolution from class 10th school textbooks. Only students who take opt for biology in class 11th will be taught Darwin's theory of evolution.
Indonesia
A 2009 survey conducted by the McGill researchers and their international collaborators found that 85% of Indonesian high school students agreed with the statement, "Millions of fossils show that life has existed for billions of years and changed over time."
Israel
The theory of evolution is a 'hard sell' in schools in Israel. More than half of Israeli Jews accept the human evolution while more than 40% deny human evolution & claim that humans have always existed in their present form.
Latvia
According to the Pew Research Center, 66 percent of Latvians accept the theory of evolution while 25 percent of Latvians deny evolution and claim that "humans have always existed in their present form."
Lithuania
According to the Pew Research Center 54 percent of Lithuanians accept the theory of evolution while 34 percent of them deny evolution and claim that "humans have always existed in their present form."
Mexico
According to a 2014 poll by the Pew Research Center, 64% of people in Mexico believe "humans and other living things evolved over time" while 32% believe they have "always existed in the present form."
Moldova
According to the Pew Research Center, 49 percent of Moldovans accept the theory of evolution while 42 percent of Moldovan deny the theory of evolution and claim that "humans have always existed in the present form."
Nicaragua
According to a 2014 poll by the Pew Research Center, 47% of people in Nicaragua believe "humans and other living things evolved over time" while 48% believe they have "always existed in the present form."
Norway
According to a 2008 Norstat poll for NRK, 59% of the Norwegian population fully accept evolution, 24% somewhat agree with the theory, 4% somewhat disagree with the theory while 8% do not accept evolution. 4% did not know.
Pakistan
A 2009 survey conducted by the McGill researchers and their international collaborators found that 86% of Pakistani high school students agreed with the statement, "Millions of fossils show that life has existed for billions of years and changed over time."
Panama
According to a 2014 poll by the Pew Research Center, 61% of people in Panama believe "humans and other living things evolved over time" while 34% believe they have "always existed in the present form."
Paraguay
According to a 2014 poll by the Pew Research Center, 59% of people in Paraguay believe "humans and other living things evolved over time" while 30% believe they have "always existed in the present form."
Peru
According to a 2014 poll by the Pew Research Center, 51% of people in Peru believe "humans and other living things evolved over time" while 39% believe they have "always existed in the present form."
Poland
According to the Pew Research Center, 61 percent of Poles accept the theory of evolution while 23 percent of Poles deny the theory of evolution and claim that "humans have always existed in their present form."
Russia
According to the Pew Research Center, 65 percent of Russians accept the theory of evolution while 26 percent of Russians deny the theory of evolution and claim that "humans have always existed in their present form."
Serbia
According to the Pew Research Center, 61 percent of Serbians accept the theory of evolution while 29 percent of respondents in Serbia deny the theory of evolution while and claim that "humans have always existed in their present form."
Turkey
In 2017, the government removed the theory of evolution from the school curriculum.
United Kingdom
A 2006 United Kingdom poll on the "origin and development of life" asked participants to choose between three different explanations for the origin of life: 22% chose (Young Earth) creationism, 17% opted for intelligent design ("certain features of living things are best explained by the intervention of a supernatural being, e.g. God"), 48% selected evolution theory (with a divine role explicitly excluded) and the rest did not know. A 2009 poll found that only 38% of Britons believe God played no role in evolution. In a 2012 poll, 69% of Britons believe that humans evolved from less advanced life forms, while 17% believe that God created human beings in their present forms within the last 10,000 years.
United States
United States courts have ruled in favor of teaching evolution in science classrooms, and against teaching creationism, in numerous cases such as Edwards v. Aguillard, Hendren v. Campbell, McLean v. Arkansas and Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District.
A prominent organization in the United States behind the intelligent design movement is the Discovery Institute, which, through its Center for Science and Culture, conducts a number of public relations and lobbying campaigns aimed at influencing the public and policy makers in order to advance its position in academia. The Discovery Institute claims that because there is a significant lack of public support for evolution, that public schools should, as their campaign states, "Teach the Controversy", although there is no controversy over the validity of evolution within the scientific community.
US Group | Young-Earth Creationism | Belief in evolution guided by supreme being | Belief in evolution due to natural processes | NA |
---|---|---|---|---|
Public | 31% | 22% | 32% | 15% |
Scientists | 2% | 8% | 87% | 3% |
Religious Institution Attendance | Young-Earth Creationism | Belief in God-guided evolution | Belief in evolution without God |
---|---|---|---|
Attend church weekly | 69% | 24% | 1% |
Attend church nearly weekly/monthly | 47% | 39% | 9% |
Seldom/never attend church | 23% | 32% | 34% |
The US has one of the highest levels of public belief in biblical or other religious accounts of the origins of life on Earth among industrialized countries. However, according to the Pew Research Center, 62 percent of adults in the United States accept human evolution while 34 percent of adults believe that humans have always existed in their present form. The poll involved over 35,000 adults in the United States. However acceptance of evolution varies per state. For example, the State of Vermont has the highest acceptance of evolution of any other State in the United States. 79% people in Vermont accept human evolution. While Mississippi with 43% has the lowest acceptance of evolution of any US state.
According to a 2021 study, in 2019, 54% of Americans agreed with the statement: "Human beings, as we know them today, developed from earlier species of animals". A 2019 Gallup creationism survey found that 40% of adults in the United States inclined to the belief that "God created humans in their present form at one time within the last 10,000 years" when asked for their beliefs regarding the origin and development of human beings. 22% believed that "human beings have developed over millions of years from less advanced forms of life, but God had no part in this process", despite 49% of respondents indicating they believed in evolution. Belief in creationism is inversely correlated to education; only 22% of those with post-graduate degrees believe in strict creationism. The level of support for strict creationism could be even lower when poll results are adjusted after comparison with other polls with questions that more specifically account for uncertainty and ambivalence. A 2000 poll for People for the American Way found that 70% of the American public thought that evolution is compatible with a belief in God.
Political identification | Do not believe in evolution | Believe in evolution | NA |
---|---|---|---|
Republican | 68% | 30% | 2% |
Democrat | 40% | 57% | 3% |
Independent | 37% | 61% | 2% |
Political identification | Creationist | Believe in evolution | NA |
---|---|---|---|
Republican | 60% | 11% | 29% |
Democrat | 29% | 44% | 27% |
According to a 2021 study, in 2019, 34% of conservative Republicans and 83% of liberal Democrats accepted evolution. A 2005 Pew Research Center poll found that 70% of evangelical Christians believed that living organisms have not changed since their creation, but only 31% of Catholics and 32% of mainline Protestants shared this opinion. A 2005 Harris Poll estimated that 63% of liberals and 37% of conservatives agreed that humans and other primates have a common ancestry.
Ukraine
According to the Pew Research Center, 54 percent of respondents in Ukraine accept the theory of evolution while 34 percent deny the theory of evolution and claim that "humans have always existed their present form."
Uruguay
According to a 2014 poll produced by the Pew Research Center, 74% of people in Uruguay believe "humans and other living things evolved over time" while 20% believe they have "always existed in the present form."
Venezuela
According to a 2014 poll by the Pew Research Center, 63% of people in Venezuela believe "humans and other living things evolved over time" while 33% believe they have "always existed in the present form."
Other support for evolution
There are also many educational organizations that have issued statements in support of the theory of evolution.
Repeatedly, creationists and intelligent design advocates have lost suits in US courts. Here is a list of important court cases in which creationists have suffered setbacks:
- 1968 Epperson v. Arkansas, United States Supreme Court
- 1981 Segraves v. State of California, Supreme Court of California
- 1982 McLean v. Arkansas Board of Education, U.S. Federal Court
- 1987 Edwards v. Aguillard, United States Supreme Court
- 1990 Webster v. New Lenox School District, Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals
- 1994 Peloza v. Capistrano Unified School District, Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals
- 1997 Freiler v. Tangipahoa Parish Board of Education, United States District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana
- 2000 Rodney LeVake v Independent School District 656, et al., District Court for the Third Judicial District of the State of Minnesota
- 2005 Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District, US Federal Court
- 2006 Hurst v. Newman US District Court Eastern District of California
Trends
The level of assent that evolution garners has changed with time. The trends in acceptance of evolution can be estimated.
Early impact of Darwin's theory
The level of support for evolution in different communities has varied with time and social context. Darwin's theory had convinced almost every naturalist within 20 years of its publication in 1858, and was making serious inroads with the public and the more liberal clergy. It had reached such extremes, that by 1880, one American religious weekly publication estimated that "perhaps a quarter, perhaps a half of the educated ministers in our leading Evangelical denominations" thought "that the story of the creation and fall of man, told in Genesis, is no more the record of actual occurrences than is the parable of the Prodigal Son."
By the late 19th century, many of the most conservative Christians accepted an ancient Earth, and life on Earth before Eden. Victorian Era Creationists were more akin to people who subscribe to theistic evolution today. Even fervent anti-evolutionist Scopes Trial prosecutor William Jennings Bryan interpreted the "days" of Genesis as ages of the Earth, and acknowledged that biochemical evolution took place, drawing the line only at the story of Adam and Eve's creation. Prominent pre-World War II creationist Harry Rimmer allowed an Old Earth by slipping millions of years into putative gaps in the Genesis account, and claimed that the Noachian Flood was only a local phenomenon.
In the decades of the 20th century, George McCready Price and a tiny group of Seventh-day Adventist followers were among the very few believers in a Young Earth and a worldwide flood, which Price championed in his "new catastrophism" theories. It was not until the publication of John C. Whitcomb, Jr., and Henry M. Morris’s book Genesis Flood in 1961 that Price's idea was revived. In the last few decades, many creationists have adopted Price's beliefs, becoming progressively more strict biblical literalists.
Recent public beliefs
The examples and perspective in this article deal primarily with the United States and do not represent a worldwide view of the subject. You may improve this article, discuss the issue on the talk page, or create a new article, as appropriate. (December 2010) (Learn how and when to remove this message) |
In a 1991 Gallup poll, 47% of the US population, and 25% of college graduates agreed with the statement, "God created man pretty much in his present form at one time within the last 10,000 years."
Fourteen years later, in 2005, Gallup found that 53% of Americans expressed the belief that "God created human beings in their present form exactly the way the Bible describes it." About 2/3 (65.5%) of those surveyed thought that creationism was definitely or probably true. In 2005 a Newsweek poll discovered that 80 percent of the American public thought that "God created the universe." and the Pew Research Center reported that "nearly two-thirds of Americans say that creationism should be taught alongside evolution in public schools." Ronald Numbers commented on that with "Most surprising of all was the discovery that large numbers of high-school biology teachers — from 30% in Illinois and 38% in Ohio to a whopping 69% in Kentucky — supported the teaching of creationism."
The National Center for Science Education reports that from 1985 to 2005, the number of Americans unsure about evolution increased from 7% to 21%, while the number rejecting evolution declined from 48% to 39%. Jon Miller of Michigan State University has found in his polls that the number of Americans who accept evolution has declined from 45% to 40% from 1985 to 2005.
In light of these somewhat contradictory results, it is difficult to know for sure what is happening to public opinion on evolution in the US. It does not appear that either side is making unequivocal progress. It does appear that uncertainty about the issue is increasing, however.
A Pew Research Center poll in 2018 found that the way the question is asked changes the results, for instance among U.S. adults the number of people who believe humans have evolved over time varies from 68% to 81% based on the question format.
Anecdotal evidence suggests that creationism is gaining ground in the UK as well. One report in 2006 stated that UK students are increasingly arriving ill-prepared to participate in medical studies or other advanced education.
Recent scientific trends
The level of support for creationism among relevant scientists is minimal. In 2007 the Discovery Institute reported that about 600 scientists signed their A Scientific Dissent from Darwinism list, up from 100 in 2001. The actual statement of the Scientific Dissent from Darwinism is a relatively mild one that expresses skepticism about the absoluteness of 'Darwinism' (and is in line with the falsifiability required of scientific theories) to explain all features of life, and does not in any way represent an absolute denial or rejection of evolution. By contrast, a tongue-in-cheek response known as Project Steve, a list restricted to scientists with the name Steve (or variations of it) who agree that evolution is "a vital, well-supported, unifying principle of the biological sciences," has 1,491 signatories as of September 18, 2023. People with these names make up approximately 1% of the total U.S. population.
The United States National Science Foundation statistics on US yearly science graduates demonstrate that from 1987 to 2001, the number of biological science graduates increased by 59% while the number of geological science graduates decreased by 20.5%. However, the number of geology graduates in 2001 was only 5.4% of the number of graduates in the biological sciences, while it was 10.7% of the number of biological science graduates in 1987. The Science Resources Statistics Division of the National Science Foundation estimated that in 1999, there were 955,300 biological scientists in the US (about 1/3 of who hold graduate degrees). There were also 152,800 earth scientists in the US as well.
A large fraction of the Darwin Dissenters have specialties unrelated to research on evolution; of the dissenters, three-quarters are not biologists. As of 2006, the dissenter list was expanded to include non-US scientists.
Some researchers are attempting to understand the factors that affect people's acceptance of evolution. Studies have yielded inconsistent results, explains associate professor of education at Ohio State University, David Haury. He recently performed a study that found people are likely to reject evolution if they have feelings of uncertainty, regardless of how well they understand evolutionary theory. Haury believes that teachers need to show students that their intuitive feelings may be misleading (for example, using the Wason selection task), and thus to exercise caution when relying on them as they judge the rational merits of ideas.
See also
Footnotes
- "For Darwin Day, 6 facts about the evolution debate". 11 February 2019.
- ^ Rosenberg, Stacy (2009-07-09). "Section 5: Evolution, Climate Change and Other Issues". Pew Research Center. Retrieved 2024-05-11.
- Ruling, Kitzmiller v. Dover page 83: "an overwhelming number of scientists, as reflected by every scientific association that has spoken on the matter, have rejected the ID proponents’ challenge to evolution."
- Noah, Timothy (2000-10-31). "George W. Bush, The Last Relativist". Slate. Retrieved 2007-10-23.
- Pyke, Nicholas (2004-06-13). "Revealed: Tony Blair's link to schools that take the Creation literally". The Independent. Archived from the original on 2007-09-28.; full article at Ohanian, Susan. "Outrages". Archived from the original on 2009-02-18. Retrieved 2007-10-23.
- Meinert, Peer. "Wir drehen die Uhr um 1000 Jahre zurück ("We put the clock back a 1000 years")" (in German). Archived from the original on 2007-10-14. Retrieved 2007-10-23.
- "Serbia reverses Darwin suspension" (stm). BBC News. 2004-09-09. Retrieved 2007-10-23.
- "And finally." Warsaw Business Journal. 2006-12-18. Retrieved 2007-10-23.
- Gunnink, Frans; Bell, Philip (2005-06-07). "Creation commotion in Dutch Parliament". Archived from the original on 2007-10-13. Retrieved 2007-10-23.; Enserink, Martin (2005-06-03). "Evolution politics: Is Holland becoming the Kansas of Europe?". Science. 308 (5727): 1394. doi:10.1126/science.308.5727.1394b. PMID 15933170. S2CID 153515231.
- "Worldwide creationism, Shotgun stunner, and more". New Scientist. Retrieved 2010-05-24.
- Numbers, Ronald L. (2009). Galileo goes to jail: and other myths about science and religion. Cambridge: Harvard University Press. pp. 221–223. ISBN 978-0-674-03327-6.
- Numbers, Ronald L. (2009). "Myth 24: That Creationism is a Uniquely American Phenomenon". Galileo goes to jail and other myths about science and religion. Cambridge and London: Harward University Press. p. 217. ISBN 978-0-674-03327-6. Retrieved 2011-09-03.
Antievolutionists in Australia celebrated in August 2005, when the minister of education, a Christian physician named Brendan Nelson, came out in favor of exposing students both to evolution and ID...
- Numbers, Ronald L. (2009). "Myth 24: That Creationism is a Uniquely American Phenomenon". Galileo goes to jail and other myths about science and religion. Cambridge and London: Harward University Press. pp. 217, 279. ISBN 978-0-674-03327-6. Retrieved 2011-09-03.
Three years later the New Zealand Listener surprised many of its readers by announcing that "God and Darwin are still battling it out in New Zealand schools."
- Numbers, Ronald L. (2009). "Myth 24: That Creationism is a Uniquely American Phenomenon". Galileo goes to jail and other myths about science and religion. Cambridge and London: Harward University Press. p. 217. ISBN 978-0-674-03327-6. Retrieved 2011-09-03.
Writing in 2000, one observer claimed that "there are possibly more creationists per capita in Canada than in any other Western country apart from US."
- McCollister, Betty (1989). Voices for evolution. Berkeley, CA: National Center for Science Education. ISBN 978-0-939873-51-7.
- Matsumura, Molleen (1995). Voices for evolution. Berkeley, CA: National Center for Science Education. ISBN 978-0-939873-53-1.
- Working Group on Teaching Evolution, National Academy of Sciences (1998). Teaching about evolution and the nature of science. Washington, D.C.: National Academy Press. ISBN 978-0-309-06364-7.; available on-line: United States National Academy of Sciences (1998). Teaching About Evolution and the Nature of Science (ebook). Washington DC: National Academy Press. doi:10.17226/5787. ISBN 978-0-309-06364-7. Retrieved 2007-10-23.
- Myers, PZ (2006-06-18). "Ann Coulter: No evidence for evolution?". Pharyngula. scienceblogs.com. Archived from the original on 2006-06-22. Retrieved 2006-11-18.
- The National Science Teachers Association's position statement on the teaching of evolution.
- IAP Statement on the Teaching of Evolution Archived 2011-07-17 at the Wayback Machine Joint statement issued by the national science academies of 67 countries, including the United Kingdom's Royal Society (PDF file)
- ^ From the American Association for the Advancement of Science, the world's largest general scientific society: 2006 Statement on the Teaching of Evolution (PDF file), AAAS Denounces Anti-Evolution Laws
- ^ Fact, Fancy, and Myth on Human Evolution, Alan J. Almquist, John E. Cronin, Current Anthropology, Vol. 29, No. 3 (Jun., 1988), pp. 520–522
- Public beliefs about evolution and creation, Robinson, B. A. 1995.
- "Many Scientists See God's Hand in Evolution | National Center for Science Education". ncse.ngo. Retrieved 2024-05-11.
- Delgado, Cynthia (2006-07-28). "Finding evolution in medicine". NIH Record. 58 (15). Archived from the original (html) on 2008-11-22. Retrieved 2007-10-22.
- See: 1) List of scientific societies rejecting intelligent design 2) Kitzmiller v. Dover page 83. 3) The Discovery Institute's A Scientific Dissent From Darwinism petition begun in 2001 has been signed by "over 600 scientists" as of August 20, 2006. A four-day A Scientific Support For Darwinism petition gained 7733 signatories from scientists opposing ID. The AAAS, the largest association of scientists in the U.S., has 120,000 members, and firmly rejects ID Archived 2002-11-13 at the Wayback Machine. More than 70,000 Australian scientists and educators condemn teaching of intelligent design in school science classes Archived 2006-06-14 at the Wayback Machine. List of statements from scientific professional organizations on the status intelligent design and other forms of creationism.
- National Science Teachers Association, a professional association of 55,000 science teachers and administrators in a 2005 press release: "We stand with the nation's leading scientific organizations and scientists, including Dr. John Marburger, the president's top science advisor, in stating that intelligent design is not science.…It is simply not fair to present pseudoscience to students in the science classroom." National Science Teachers Association Disappointed About Intelligent Design Comments Made by President Bush Archived 2011-02-12 at the Wayback Machine National Science Teachers Association Press Release August 3, 2005
- Defending science education against intelligent design: a call to action Journal of Clinical Investigation 116:1134–1138 American Society for Clinical Investigation, 2006.
- Orr, H. Allen (2005-05-23). "Devolution". The New Yorker. Retrieved 2023-03-01.
Biologists aren't alarmed by intelligent design's arrival in Dover and elsewhere because they have all sworn allegiance to atheistic materialism; they're alarmed because intelligent design is junk science.
- Pennock, Robert T. (1999). Tower of Babel : the evidence against the new creationism. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press. ISBN 0-585-15711-1. OCLC 44966044.
- National Academy of Sciences, 1999 Science and Creationism: A View from the National Academy of Sciences, Second Edition
- The Elie Wiesel Foundation for Humanity Nobel Laureates Initiative. Intelligent design cannot be tested as a scientific theory "because its central conclusion is based on belief in the intervention of a supernatural agent." Nobel Laureates Initiative Archived December 9, 2006, at the Wayback Machine (PDF file)
- Faculty of Science, University of New South Wales. 20 October 2005. Intelligent Design is not Science - Scientists and teachers speak out Archived 2006-06-14 at the Wayback Machine
- Amicus Curiae brief in Edwards v. Aguillard, 85-1513 (United States Supreme Court 1986-08-18)., available at "Edwards v. Aguillard: Amicus Curiae Brief of 72 Nobel Laureates". From TalkOrigins Archive. Retrieved 2007-10-19.
- Norman, Colin (1986). "Nobelists unite against "creation science"". Science. 233 (4767): 935. Bibcode:1986Sci...233..935N. doi:10.1126/science.3738518.
- "Statements from Scientific and Scholarly Organizations | National Center for Science Education". ncse.ngo. Retrieved 2024-05-11.
- "List of 68 international scientific societies on the Interacademy Panel (IAP) that endorse a resolution supporting evolution and a multibillion year old earth, June 2006" (PDF). Archived from the original (PDF) on 2006-12-05. Retrieved 2007-01-04.
- National Science Board letter in support of evolution 1999
- "Royal Society statement on evolution, creationism and intelligent design, 11 Apr 2006". Archived from the original on 13 October 2007. Retrieved 4 January 2007.
- Read "Science, Evolution, and Creationism" at NAP.edu. 2008. doi:10.17226/11876. ISBN 978-0-309-10586-6.
- "Teaching About Evolution and the Nature of Science". 2007-11-17. Archived from the original on 2007-11-17. Retrieved 2024-05-11.
- "Chapter 4: Evolution and Perceptions of Scientific Consensus". July 2015.
- AAAS Resolution: Present Scientific Status of the Theory of Evolution, American Association for the Advancement of Science, Adopted by the AAAS Council, December 26, 1922. AAAS Executive Committee readopts this resolution on April 21, 1929.
- The Imminent Demise of Evolution: The Longest Running Falsehood in Creationism Archived 2009-02-07 at the Wayback Machine, G. R. Morton, Copyright 2002 G.R. Morton
- Bales, James D., Forty-Two Years on the Firing Line, Lambert, Shreveport, LA, p.71-72, no date.
- The Day the Scientists Voted, Bert Thompson, Apologetics Press: Sensible Science, 2001, originally published in Reason & Revelation, 2(3):9-11, March 1982.
- ^ American Biology Teacher, January 1973.
- A Statement Affirming Evolution as a Principle of Science, The Humanist, January/February, 1977, p. 4-6.
- AAPG Explorer, January, 1982.
- "Creation-Science" Law Is Struck Down, Raloff, J., Science News, 121:20, January 9, 1982.
- Attie AD, Sober E, Numbers RL, Amasino RM, Cox B, Berceau T, et al. (2006). "Defending science education against intelligent design: a call to action". J Clin Invest. 116 (5): 1134–8. doi:10.1172/JCI28449. PMC 1451210. PMID 16670753.
- (Few Biologists but Many Evangelicals Sign Anti-Evolution Petition, Panda's Thumb, February 21, 2006) Archived December 13, 2006, at the Wayback Machine
- "Project Steve | National Center for Science Education". ncse.ngo. Retrieved 2024-05-11.
- "Bios". Answers in Genesis. Retrieved 2024-05-11.
- "List of Steves | National Center for Science Education". ncse.ngo. Retrieved 2024-05-11.
- ^ Finding the Evolution in Medicine Archived November 22, 2008, at the Wayback Machine, Cynthia Delgado, NIH Record, July 28, 2006.
- Religious Groups: Opinions of Evolution, Pew Forum (conducted in 2007, released in 2008)
- Princeton theologian Charles Hodge, in his book Systematic Theology Archived 2007-02-24 at the Wayback Machine, Charles Hodge, Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co, 1975, vol. 2, p. 15, argues that "First, it shocks the common sense of unsophisticated men to be told that the whale and the humming-bird, man and the mosquito, are derived from the same source... the system is thoroughly atheistic, and therefore cannot possibly stand."
- Evolution and Christianity are opposites Archived 2006-10-21 at the Wayback Machine, p. 36 of Evolution and Society, Volume 2 of Scientific Facts Against Evolution-Origin of the Universe: 3 Volume Encyclopedia states, of evolution and Christianity, "there can be no reconciliation between the two. One view stands for fighting, warfare against the supposed weaker ones, and atheism; the other is for peace, self-sacrifice for the good of others, and belief and trust in the Creator God...Even evolutionists and atheists have declared that their creeds are totally different than those of Christianity." Also in the article Evolution and the churches on pages 39-41 of the same volume, "In spite of clear-cut statements by evolutionists that "evolution IS atheism," many denominations today accept one form or another of evolutionary theory."
- McLean v Arkansas, Encyclopedia of Arkansas
- Defending the teaching of evolution in public education, Statements from Religious Organizations
- Archbishop of Canterbury backs evolution: Well, he is a Primate, Chris Williams, The Register, Tuesday 21 March 2006
- Matsumura 1998, p. 9 notes that, "Table 1 demonstrates that Americans in the 12 largest Christian denominations, 89.6% belong to churches that support evolution education! Indeed, many of the statements in Voices insist quite strongly that evolution must be included in science education and "creation science" must be excluded. Even if we subtract the Southern Baptist Convention, which has changed its view of evolution since McLean v Arkansas and might take a different position now, the percentage those in denominations supporting evolution is still a substantial 77%. Furthermore, many other Christian and non-Christian denominations, including the United Church of Christ and the National Sikh Center, have shown some degree of support for evolution education (as defined by inclusion in 'Voices' or the "Joint Statement")." Matsumura produced her table from a June, 1998 article titled Believers: Dynamic Dozen put out by Religion News Services which in turn cites the 1998 Yearbook of American and Canadian Churches. Matsurmura's calculations include the SBC based on a brief they filed in McLean v. Arkansas, where the SBC took a position it has since changed, according to Matsurmura. See also NCSE 2002.
- Christianity, Evolution Not in Conflict, John Richard Schrock, Wichita Eagle May 17, 2005 page 17A Archived September 27, 2011, at the Wayback Machine
- Matsumura 1998, p. 9
- The Bible: Is it a True and Accurate Account of Creation? (Part 2): The Position of Major Christian Denominations on Creation and Inerrancy Archived 2007-10-15 at the Wayback Machine, Walter B. Murfin, David F. Beck, 13 April 1998, hosted on Coalition for Excellence in Science and Math Education Archived 2007-10-15 at the Wayback Machine website
- ^ Darwin on the Right: Why Christians and conservatives should accept evolution, Michael Shermer, Scientific American, October 2006.
- Effendi 1912, p. 350
- ʻAbdu'l-Bahá 1912, pp. 51–52
- ʻAbdu'l-Bahá 1908, pp. 198–99
- Pope John Paul II, Speech to the Pontifical Academy of Sciences, October 23, 1996
- "Communion and Stewardship: Human Persons Created in the Image of God" Archived June 21, 2014, at the Wayback Machine, International Theological Commission.
- Tom Heneghan. "Catholics and Evolution: Interview with Cardinal Christoph Schönborn", BeliefNet, Jan. 5, 2006
- Finding Design in Nature by Christoph Schönborn
- "Intelligent design" criticized in Vatican newspaper, NCSE article, January 20, 2006
- In "Design" vs. Darwinism, Darwin Wins Point in Rome, Ian Fisher and Cornelia Dean, New York Times, January 19, 2006.
- Intelligent Design belittles God, Vatican director says Archived March 23, 2013, at the Wayback Machine, Mark Lombard, 1/30/2006, Catholic Online
- "What is the Meaning of Sikhism Term Waheguru?".
- "Sri Granth: Sri Guru Granth Sahib".
- Dave Hernandez - Michigan State University
- "The doctrine of creation". Assemblies of God. Retrieved 3 November 2023.
- "Brief Statement of LCMS Doctrinal Position - The Lutheran Church—Missouri Synod". www.lcms.org.
- "Official Seventh-day Adventist belief statement advocating creationism". Archived from the original on 2006-03-10. Retrieved 2007-01-23.
- "Southern Baptist Convention Resolution on Creationism". Archived from the original on 2013-12-17. Retrieved 2009-06-30.
- Holbird, Doyle (11 July 2019). "My Help Comes From the Lord, the Maker of Heaven and Earth". Evangelical Lutheran Synod. Retrieved 17 February 2020.
- "Are Jehovah's Witnesses Creationists?". Awake!: 3. September 2006.
- Insight on the Scriptures. Vol. 1. Watch Tower Society. p. 545.
- "Science and the Genesis account". Was Life Created? (PDF). Watch Tower Society. pp. 24–27.
- Chryssides, George D. (2008). Historical Dictionary of Jehovah's Witnesses. Scarecrow Press. p. 37. ISBN 9780810862692.
- Lindsey, George (1985-10-01). "Evolution - Useful or Useless?" (asp). Impact. #148. Retrieved 2007-10-22.
- Wieland, Carl (1999-09-01). "Evolution and practical science". Creation. 20 (4): 4. Archived from the original (asp) on September 29, 2007. Retrieved 2007-10-22.
- Ham, Ken (1998-09-01). "French creation interview with French scientist Dr André Eggen" (asp). Creation. 20 (4): 17–19. Retrieved 2007-10-22.
- Williams, George; Nesse, Randolph M. (1996). Why we get sick: the new science of Darwinian medicine. New York: Vintage Books. p. 304. ISBN 978-0-679-74674-4.
- ^ Isaak, Mark, ed. (2005-10-04). "Index to Creationist claims: Claim CA215". TalkOrigins Archive. Retrieved 2007-10-22.
- Mindell, David A. (2006). The evolving world: evolution in everyday life. Cambridge: Harvard University Press. ISBN 978-0-674-02191-4.
- "NCBI PubMed". PubMed. 2012-06-25. Retrieved 2012-06-25.
- Gertzen, Jason; Stafford, Diane (2005-10-08). "Do Scientists See Kansas, Missouri As 'Anti-Science'?". The Kansas City Star. Archived from the original on November 17, 2007. Retrieved 2007-10-22.
- Waging War on Evolution, Paul A. Hanle, Washington Post, Sunday, October 1, 2006; Page B04
- McCarter, James (n.d.). "Evolution is a Winner - for Breakthroughs and Prizes" (asp). National Center for Science Education. Retrieved 2007-10-22.; originally published in the St. Louis Post-Dispatch, 2005-10-09.
- Michael Le Page (19 April 2008). "Evolution myths: It doesn't matter if people don't grasp evolution". New Scientist. 198 (2652): 31. doi:10.1016/S0262-4079(08)60984-7.
- ^ Jon D. Miller; Eugenie C. Scott; Shinji Okamoto (11 August 2006). "Public Acceptance of Evolution". Science. 313 (5788): 765–766. doi:10.1126/science.1126746. PMID 16902112. S2CID 152990938.
- The Cultural Cognition Project, retrieved May 28, 2014
- Shtulman, Andrew (2006), "Qualitative differences between naïve and scientific theories of evolution", Cognitive Psychology, 52 (2): 170–194, doi:10.1016/j.cogpsych.2005.10.001, PMID 16337619, S2CID 20274446
- ^ "Muslim Views on Religion, Science and Popular Culture". 2013-04-30.
- ^ Religion in Latin America (Report). Pew Research Center. November 13, 2014.
- ^ "Science and religion in central and eastern Europe". 2017-05-10.
- Marr, David (December 19, 2009). "Faith: What Australians believe in". The Age. Melbourne, Australia. Archived from the original on December 11, 2018. Retrieved December 11, 2018.
- Maley, Jacqueline (December 19, 2009). "God is still tops but angels rate well". The Age. Melbourne, Australia. Archived from the original on September 13, 2012. Retrieved December 18, 2009.
- "Science literacy in Australia" (PDF). Australian Academy of Science. 2013.
- 59% dos brasileiros acreditam em Deus e também em Darwin
- Research Co.
- ^ Opinions on evolution from ten countries July 2nd, 2009, National Center for Science Education
- "Darwin and unnatural disbelief". Los Angeles Times. July 1, 2009. Archived from the original on Jan 12, 2020. Retrieved May 30, 2020.
- Darwin teaching 'divides opinion' BBC News; Monday, 26 October 2009. The 10 nations among which the survey was carried out were: Argentina, China, Egypt, Great Britain, India, Mexico, Russia, South Africa, Spain, USA.
- "Results of Global British Council Global Education Darwin Survey" (PDF). British Council. June 30, 2009. Retrieved January 14, 2021.
- "Explained snippets: Two of three Indians accept evolution, led by four of five in Delhi, says study". The Indian Express. 2018-08-29. Retrieved 2018-08-31.
- Bast, Felix (2018). "Public Acceptance of Evolution in India". Journal of Scientific Temper. 6: 24–38.
- "NCERT Class 10th new syllabus 2023: Now, Evolution and Periodic table removed from CBSE science textbooks". India Tv. 2 June 2023. Retrieved 5 June 2023.
- "Darwin's theory of evolution removed from school books in India". ABC Australia. 30 Apr 2023. Retrieved 11 May 2023.
- ^ Chang, Kenneth (2009-11-02). "Creationism, Without a Young Earth, Emerges in the Islamic World". The New York Times. ISSN 0362-4331. Retrieved 2017-04-24.
- "About half of Israeli Jews believe in evolution | Pew Research Center".
- "Evolution a hard sell among Israeli Jews, Pew study finds". The Times of Israel.
- Chris Veløy (13 March 2008) 1 av 10 tror ikke på evolusjonen NRK. Retrieved 14 January 2014 (in Norwegian)
- Kroet, Cynthia (July 18, 2017). "Darwin cut from Turkish schools". Politico. Retrieved 11 May 2023.
- Britons unconvinced on evolution BBC 26 January 2006
- BBC Survey On The Origins Of Life IPSOS-Mori
- "Project Darwin Omnibus - Great Britain" (PDF). Ipsos. April 2009. Archived from the original (PDF) on 5 March 2016. Retrieved 24 April 2017.
- "Angus Reid Polls" (PDF). Archived from the original (PDF) on 2017-06-21. Retrieved 2015-04-06.
- "Evolution, Climate Change and Other Issues". PewResearch. 2009-07-09. Retrieved 2013-03-06.
- Newport, Frank (2014-06-02). "In U.S., 42% Believe Creationist View of Human Origins". Gallup. Retrieved 2015-07-29.
- Third of Americans Say Evidence Has Supported Darwin's Evolution Theory Almost half of Americans believe God created humans 10,000 years ago Frank Newport Result of 2004 Gallup poll showing about 45% of the US public believe in the biblical creation account, and only 1/3 believe in Darwinian theory.
- "Public's Views on Human Evolution | Pew Research Center". 2013-12-30.
- "Religion in America: U.S. Religious Data, Demographics and Statistics | Pew Research Center".
- ^ "Study: Evolution now accepted by majority of Americans". University of Michigan News. 2021-08-20. Retrieved 2022-03-28.
- "40% of Americans Believe in Creationism". July 26, 2019.
- Harper, Jennifer (2006-06-09). "Americans Still Hold Faith In Divine Creation". Washington Times (on-line). Archived from the original on 2006-06-16.
- Branch, Glenn (2017). "Understanding Gallup's Latest Poll on Evolution". Skeptical Inquirer. 41 (5): 5–6.
- "Evolution and Creationism in Public Education". People for the American Way Poll. Archived from the original on September 30, 2007. Retrieved 2007-10-29.
- Newport, Frank (2007-06-11). "Majority of Republicans doubt theory of evolution". Gallup. Retrieved 2008-06-01.
- 2005 Pew Research Center poll
- Nearly Two-thirds of U.S. Adults Believe Human Beings Were Created by God Archived 2005-12-17 at the Wayback Machine, The Harris Poll #52, July 6, 2005.
- List of educational organizations that support evolution and their statements about evolution
- Teaching About Evolution and the Nature of Science (1998) Appendix A, National Academy of Sciences, National Academy Press, Washington DC, 1998.
- Epperson v. Arkansas, 393 U.S. 97. (1968)
- Segraves v. California, No. 278978 Sacramento Superior Court (1981)
- McLean v. Arkansas Board of Education, 529 F. Supp. 1255, 50 (1982) U.S. Law Week 2412
- Edwards v. Aguillard, 482, U.S. 578, 55 (1987) U.S. Law Week 4860, S. CT. 2573, 96 L. Ed. 2d510
- Webster v. New Lenox School District #122, 917 F.2d 1004 (7th. Cir., 1990)
- Peloza v. Capistrano Unified School District, 37 F.3d 517 (9th Cir., 1994)
- Freiler v Tangipahoa Board of Education, No. 94-3577 (E.D. La. Aug. 8, 1997)
- Order Granting Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment and Memorandum, Court File Nr. CX-99-793, District Court for the Third Judicial District of the State of Minnesota
- Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District No. 04-2688 (M.D. Pa. Dec. 20, 2005)
- Macpherson, Ryan (2003). The Vestiges of Creation in America's Pre-Darwinian Evolution Debates: Interpreting Theology and the Natural Sciences in Three Academic Communities (PhD). University of Notre Dame. Retrieved 17 August 2019., found that different answers about the nature of salvation correlated with attitudes toward the pre-Darwinian Vestiges
- ^ The Creationists: From Scientific Creationism to Intelligent Design, expanded edition, Ronald L. Numbers, Harvard University Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts and London, England, 2006 ISBN 0-674-02339-0
- Why doesn't America believe in evolution?, Jeff Hecht, New Scientist, 20 August 2006
- Science, vol 313, p 765
- Funk, Cary (6 February 2019). "How highly religious Americans view evolution depends on how they're asked about it". Pew Research Center. Retrieved 2022-02-18.
- Academics fight rise of creationism at universities: More students believe Darwin got it wrong, Royal Society challenges "insidious problem", Duncan Campbell, The Guardian, Tuesday February 21, 2006.
- Staff, Discovery Institute (2007-03-08). "Ranks of Scientists Doubting Darwin's Theory on the Rise". Discovery Institute. Retrieved 2007-10-30.
- Evans, Skip (2001-11-29). "Doubting Darwinism through Creative License". National Center for Science Education. Retrieved 2007-12-13.
- "Project Steve". National Center for Science Education. October 17, 2008. Retrieved November 24, 2015.
- "NSF statistics on science graduates 1966–2001" (PDF). National Science Foundation. Archived from the original (PDF) on 2006-11-09.
- "1999 SESTAT (Scientists and Engineers Statistical Data) Table C-1" (PDF). National Science Foundation/Science Resources Statistics Division. Archived from the original (PDF) on 2006-09-29.
- Chang, Kenneth (2006-03-21). "Few Biologists But Many Evangelicals Sign Anti-Evolution Petition" (php). The New York Times.; text available without registering at "Skeptical News".
- Crowther, Robert (2006-06-21). "Dissent From Darwinism 'Goes Global' as Over 600 Scientists Around the World Express Their Doubts About Darwinian Evolution". Discovery Institute. Retrieved 2007-10-30.
- Ha, Minsu (2011). "Feeling of certainty: Uncovering a missing link between knowledge and acceptance of evolution". Journal of Research in Science Teaching. 49 (1): 95–121. Bibcode:2012JRScT..49...95H. doi:10.1002/tea.20449.
- Discovery News, "Belief in Evolution Boils Down to a Gut Feeling", Sun Jan 22, 2012 09:24 AM ET. Content provided by LiveScience.com
References
- ʻAbdu'l-Bahá (1908). Some Answered Questions. Wilmette, Illinois, USA: Baháʼí Publishing Trust (published 1990).
- ʻAbdu'l-Bahá (1912). Paris Talks. London: Baháʼí Distribution Service (published 1995). ISBN 1-870989-57-0.
- Effendi, Abbas (1912). The Promulgation of Universal Peace. US Baháʼí Publishing Trust (published 1987). ISBN 0-87743-172-8.
- Matsumura, Molleen (1998). "What Do Christians Really Believe About Evolution?". Reports of the National Center About Evolution. 18 (2): 8–9. Retrieved on 2007-02-07
- National Center for Science Education (NCSE) (2002). "Statements from Religious Organizations". NCSE Resource. Retrieved on 2007-02-08